Comparison of McCain's and Obama's Healthcare Plans

[Sabra]

From Today's "Fresh Air"
About 30 minutes of great explanation that gave me a lot of insight.

[kandrathe]

From Today's "Fresh Air"
About 30 minutes of great explanation that gave me a lot of insight.

The first problem is accuracy in media,

"But if you're one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, then you will have it available to you. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness,"

This is a number that has been debunked. Some of these people choose not to have insurance, some are illegal aliens, some are between employers, and some have yet to file for benefits. In Minnesota, with all the various give away programs the number of uninsured is a fraction of a percent. 49% of Minnesota's uninsured qualify for a program, but have not applied. I would like a system that does not rely on employers, but I'd rather not have it be a government program.

My concern is that government bureaucracy has not proven to be a good solution for anything else, so why do we continue to believe that it is the answer for health insurance. Even those other nations with highly touted systems, such as the French, are seeing them begin to unravel.

[Sabra]

The first problem is accuracy in media,

"But if you're one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, then you will have it available to you. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness,"

This is a number that has been debunked. Some of these people choose not to have insurance, some are illegal aliens, some are between employers, and some have yet to file for benefits. In Minnesota, with all the various give away programs the number of uninsured is a fraction of a percent. 49% of Minnesota's uninsured qualify for a program, but have not applied. I would like a system that does not rely on employers, but I'd rather not have it be a government program.

My concern is that government bureaucracy has not proven to be a good solution for anything else, so why do we continue to believe that it is the answer for health insurance. Even those other nations with highly touted systems, such as the French, are seeing them begin to unravel.

Ok, whatever, Love, but didn't you find it a good overview? That's what I thought the benefit was. It really laid out the position of each man quite well.

[Tris]

The first problem is accuracy in media,

"But if you're one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, then you will have it available to you. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness,"

This is a number that has been debunked. Some of these people choose not to have insurance, some are illegal aliens, some are between employers, and some have yet to file for benefits. In Minnesota, with all the various give away programs the number of uninsured is a fraction of a percent. 49% of Minnesota's uninsured qualify for a program, but have not applied. I would like a system that does not rely on employers, but I'd rather not have it be a government program.

My concern is that government bureaucracy has not proven to be a good solution for anything else, so why do we continue to believe that it is the answer for health insurance. Even those other nations with highly touted systems, such as the French, are seeing them begin to unravel.

How many of those haven't applied out of ignorance? And, for a person wtih a pre-existing medical condition, getting coverage can suck. Have psoriasis... no dice; have depression/anxiety and have the audacity to try to treat it... no dice; born with asthma... too bad.

Corporate bureaucrats don't do any better: HMO's requiring pre-approval for coverage in medical emergencies (sorry patient we can't treat you, your HMO told us that it was "unnecessary" surgery to stop the internal bleeding, guess you'll just sit there and bleed to death). The only thing that corporate bureaucracy does is make a different set of people rich off the graft and corruption you see in government agencies.

Also in the "private is better" matter... you know how many private insurance companies had to be sued before paying under contract obligations after Katrina, Wilma, etc.? I don't want to hear that private is "better" than government or more efficient.

The only solution is better people. Making everything private isn't the solution, making everything public isn't the solution either. Accountability, integrity, and *real* penalties for transgression is the only way to go.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The only solution is better people.

Reminds me of a Southern governor (but I don't remember which) who claimed that the solution to his state's penal system was a better class of inmate. :w00t:

Got any ideas on how to implement your solution? Perhaps breed for the 'better people' gene?

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Reminds me of a Southern governor (but I don't remember which) who claimed that the solution to his state's penal system was a better class of inmate. :w00t:

Got any ideas on how to implement your solution? Perhaps breed for the 'better people' gene?

--Pete

Let's not try the breeding theme, let's try to fix what's already around. I propose Gene therapy for people who are found to have the "stupid" gene.

Lead therapy if the gene therapy doesn't work.

(Oblique reference to Heinlein's old adage about stupidity being the only sin, punishable by death)

To Sabra, in re the OP:

I put no stock in either of their plans. The problem with plans is getting them into execution. Trust me on that one. Hmmm, I think I suggested execution above, maybe we are on to something! :D

[Kevin]

Edit: Public self pity will do me no good.

[kandrathe]

How many of those haven't applied out of ignorance?

Some people here are too stupid to get out of the rain. A phone call to social services would get them hooked up.

And, for a person wtih a pre-existing medical condition, getting coverage can suck. Have psoriasis... no dice; have depression/anxiety and have the audacity to try to treat it... no dice; born with asthma... too bad.

This is where government has a role in setting up fairness in policies, and preventing abusive behavior.

Corporate bureaucrats don't do any better: HMO's requiring pre-approval for coverage in medical emergencies (sorry patient we can't treat you, your HMO told us that it was "unnecessary" surgery to stop the internal bleeding, guess you'll just sit there and bleed to death). The only thing that corporate bureaucracy does is make a different set of people rich off the graft and corruption you see in government agencies.

Part of the problem is that the system is so out of control that the price of health care necessitates having insurance, at least for catastrophic circumstances. It is ludicrous that some bureaucrat in an HMO is second guessing a doctors diagnosis and prescribed treatment. On the other hand, there has been too much garbage pressed onto HMO providers, like treating alcoholism, smoking cessation, or other self inflicted health conditions.

Also in the "private is better" matter... you know how many private insurance companies had to be sued before paying under contract obligations after Katrina, Wilma, etc.? I don't want to hear that private is "better" than government or more efficient.

How would you like to fight the government on getting your medical bills paid? At least with corporations the "lawsuit" is an option.

The only solution is better people. Making everything private isn't the solution, making everything public isn't the solution either. Accountability, integrity, and *real* penalties for transgression is the only way to go.

The only way you can make it cheaper is to get government subsidies out of the game. There needs to be *real* competition in the marketplace. Governments role is to regulate who can be a care provider (licensed), or hospital, and through the FDA what drugs can be sold. There is a problem with FDA as well in requiring "perfect" drugs before licensing. There should be an intermediate phase where the drug is available, but considered "experimental". People can decided if they want to take the risk or not.

Another issue in US health care is the propensity to try to save everyone as if they were all 20 years old. Most of the money is spent on trying to save people who have a very slim chance. We have trouble letting anyone die.

[kandrathe]

Ok, whatever, Love, but didn't you find it a good overview? That's what I thought the benefit was. It really laid out the position of each man quite well.

Yes, it did. Thanks for providing it! :)

[Jester]

It is ludicrous that some bureaucrat in an HMO is second guessing a doctors diagnosis and prescribed treatment.

Actually, that's not as crazy as it sounds. Actuarial formulae based on regression from past data have consistently outperformed actual live doctors in diagnosis and perscription. Doctors can catch some things that the algorithms don't, but not often enough to beat them. Usually, it's not even close.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Actually, that's not as crazy as it sounds. Actuarial formulae based on regression from past data have consistently outperformed actual live doctors in diagnosis and perscription. Doctors can catch some things that the algorithms don't, but not often enough to beat them. Usually, it's not even close.

-Jester

Then we don't need doctors. We just need algorithms.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Then we don't need doctors. We just need algorithms.

We need both. The doctor is (or at least should be) the expert on the diagnosis and treatment. But on prognosis, doctors are extremely optimistically biased. To them, any chance of success is sufficient justification to try a cure, regardless of the cost in money and in pain. While the HMO and insurance industries are equally callous about the pain, at least they do monitor the cost.

And, it is exactly in this respect that socialized medicine fails. Either the availability is too restricted, thus opening up a gray market in medicine, or it is not restricted enough, thus breaking the economy. Usually, the second is how it starts and the first is how it ends when the government tries to solve the cost problem.

As someone that is a quarter of the way to being a 'six million dollar man', I'm the last one who should be speaking against unlimited health coverage. But I do think it is wrong, regardless of whether it is through an insurance company (as mine is) or through the government. However, like car pool lanes (which I'm also against), I'll use it if it's available. Call me pragmatic or hypocritical.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Another fundamental problem is that since we all die, we all can't have an expensive "do everything you can to save me" death. There just isn't enough money to fund it all, and we can't continue to borrow from the future driving up the national debt forever.

[Mordekhuul]

Another fundamental problem is that since we all die, we all can't have an expensive "do everything you can to save me" death. There just isn't enough money to fund it all, and we can't continue to borrow from the future driving up the national debt forever.

But, how will we continue to go to war and feel like the cost was put on Uncle Sam's charge card if we don't keep driving up the debt? We'd have to justify the war strongly enough that folks would be willing to make sacrifices across the country or something, and that's crazy talk!

[kandrathe]

But, how will we continue to go to war and feel like the cost was put on Uncle Sam's charge card if we don't keep driving up the debt? We'd have to justify the war strongly enough that folks would be willing to make sacrifices across the country or something, and that's crazy talk!

Actually, a big problem was that the nations military hasn't had a break since WWII. We've gone from war to war, with brief periods of peace. The US constitutionally was never meant to be the world's police force, and we continue to add the debts of settling all the worlds problems.

[Sabra]

You know, it's interesting to me. I read through the replied and comments in this thread, and all I can do it wonder if anyone actually listened to the interview for the value that's there?

Too bad. Last time I do this.

[kandrathe]

You know, it's interesting to me. I read through the replied and comments in this thread, and all I can do it wonder if anyone actually listened to the interview for the value that's there?

Too bad. Last time I do this.

Don't take it personally. I think people did as I did, listened to it and then didn't comment.

This forum goes through bouts of verbal/mental drought. I don't think the mood is one of discussion currently.

[Occhidiangela]

You know, it's interesting to me. I read through the replied and comments in this thread, and all I can do it wonder if anyone actually listened to the interview for the value that's there?

Too bad. Last time I do this.

Maybe assuming anyone/everyone wanted to spend thirty minutes on your link needs to be reconsidered.

Occhi

[Taem]

Comparing The Plans
McCain: He would replace the current tax-free status of health insurance coverage provided by employers with refundable tax credits worth $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to help purchase insurance. McCain would allow the sale of insurance policies across state lines, rather than state by state, as is currently the case.

Obama: He would create a new plan for those who lack other access to coverage, as well as a National Health Insurance Exchange to help pool the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals. Obama would also offer a combination of subsidies and tax credits to help make coverage more affordable. He would mandate health insurance coverage for children, but not adults. Obama would create a federally sponsored health insurance plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private plans for those under age 65.

Obama has a lot of ideas, but no solid plan (his "plan" is to create a "plan") for doing what he says he wants to do. Obama has a LOT of ideas... While I do agree with his move to give all children health coverage, I think this may has a side-effect on the taxes we pay, and may hurt the middle-class at a time where Obama is talking about helping the middle class. McCain's laid out plan is quite clear, and while I don't 100% think its the best solution, it is one that will work at helping lower-income families get health coverage, and may even be incentive for business which don't offer health coverage to start carrying it.

[kandrathe]

...While I do agree with his move to give all children health coverage...

What is SCHIP? I guess not federally controlled. Egads, FCHIP if done as in Minnesota will bankrupt the nation. Here, adults without children qualify for State Childrens Health Insurance Program. Here, it truly is a "socialist" program.