|
|
|
Featured BlogadUser loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsUpcoming events
Syndicate Other KnoxViews blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 13 users and 168 guests online.
|
Sen. Corker proposes government funded health careSubmitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2008/04/28 - 10:15am.
In a Knoxville News Sentinel op-ed yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker says the government should pay for people's health care. According to Sen. Corker, he only recently learned from speaking to a gentleman in East Tennessee that a lot of people don't have health insurance and end up going to emergency rooms for treatment. Sen. Corker's solution is to provide every American "cash in hand," $2,160 for individuals or $5,400 for families, to purchase health insurance either through their employer or in the private market. He says it will be revenue neutral, but he doesn't explain how. He also says that the alternative is "government-sponsored health care," which would "lower the quality of care, limit access to physicians and put a government bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor." A couple of things. If "government-sponsored health care" is such a bad thing, why he is proposing exactly that? Second, Sen. Corker seems out of touch with regard to the cost of premiums. The average annual total premium cost in 2007 was $4,479 for single coverage and $12,106 for family coverage (source). Third, Sen. Corker is apparently unaware that insurance companies in Tennessee aren't required to write anyone an individual policy. So if you're not employed by, say, the Federal Government (like Sen. Corker), good luck. Not only that, but employers aren't required by federal law to offer insurance either. So a big check from the government isn't going to help you if you are unemployed, self-employed, underemployed, or your employer doesn't provide health insurance, especially in Tennessee. Fourth, Sen. Corker, like many Republicans, believes we can fix anything in the tax code ("we make the tax code treat all Americans equally when it comes to buying health insurance"). Meanwhile, his colleague, senior Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, just recently called for eliminating the tax code and going to a flat tax. So how can we solve all our problems through the tax code if we don't have a tax code? Maybe Sen. Corker's people ought to get with Sen. Alexander's people and schedule lunch? Finally (I guess that was more than a couple of things), I am not clear on how "government-sponsored health care" (which is ironically what he proposes) would "limit access to physicians" or how it would put a "government bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor." The last time I checked, just about every physician and hospital accepts Medicare. And unlike most private insurance, which requires pre-approval by minimum-wage cubical clerks in call centers (in India?), standard Medicare requires no pre-approval. And study after study shows Medicare is more cost effective and has lower administrative overhead than private insurance. In fact, some studies say we could reduce our overall health care costs (another one of Sen. Corker's goals) by $200 billion to $300 billion per year by opening up Medicare insurance to everyone. In other words, we are already paying for "universal coverage," we're just not getting it. Sen. Corker should study up on plans such as HR676, which accomplishes everything he says he wants and a lot more for a lot less, before floating more half-baked, recycled GOP talking point "solutions." The problem from Sen. Corker's point of view, though, is that a comprehensive single-payer solution doesn't benefit the corporate insurance company middle men and gatekeepers, who are the real beneficiaries of his plan. |
   SearchFree ClassifiedsLocal websites:• AC Entertainment• Ackermania • All Smokies • Andrew Eder • Blount Dems • BlountViews • Carole Borges • Clark Stooksbury • Craig Thomas • Crone Speaks • Cup of Joe Powell • David Oatney • Discover ET • Domestic Psychology • Don Williams • Ellen Smith • Farragut West Knoxville Network • Feminist Breeder • Fletch • Fort Sanders • Frank Murphy • Gene Patterson • Infomaniac • Instapundit • Jack Lail • Jack McElroy • Jim Stovall • Jonathan Hickman • Julie Patchouli • Katie Allison Granju • Knox Blog Buzz • Knox Dems • Knox Trivia • Knox Unwrapped • KnoxBlab • Knoxify • KnoxPatch • KnoxTube • KnoxvilleTalks.com • Last Home • Les Jones • Long Pauses • Lynn Point Records • Maroon Ventures • Michael Grider • Michael Silence • Mushy's Moochings • Newscoma • Nobody Asked • Phyllis Patterson • Pop Culturephile • Property Scope • PZ Ridge • Randall Brown • Reality Me • Resonance • RoaneViews • Rob Huddleston • Russ McBee • SayUncle • School Matters • Smart Energy Views • Snark Bites • Stacey Campfield • Suzy Trotta • Tabloid Boy • Team Swap • Terry Frank • Thirteen Letters • TN Clean Water • Tri Cities • Wendy Pitts Reeves • WhitesCreek Journal • Yellow Dog State websites:• 10,000 Monkeys• AC Kleinheider • Andy Axel • Bill's TN Paradise • BlogNetNews TN • Brittney Gilbert • Chris Jackson • Daily Docket • Democracy for TN • Democratic Talk Radio • Donkey's Mouth • Enclave • Ginger Snaps • Go 4 Truth • Ham Dems • Lean Left • Left Wing Cracker • Loose TN Canon • Lynnster Zone • Music City Bloggers • Nashville is Talking • Nashville Metroblog • Pesky Fly • Quiet Life • Salem's Lots • Sean Braisted • Sharon Cobb • Silence Isn't Golden • Smart City Memphis • Southern Beale • Sugarfused • TennViews • Tiny Cat Pants • TN Dems • TN Guerilla Women • TN Politics • TN Ticket • TN Trivia • West TN Liberal Regional websites:• Bob Stepno• Dope on the Slope • Facing South • Great Smoky • GTTim • Gulf Reconstruction • Hillbilly Savants • Lovable Liberal • Newsrack • Opinari • Southern Highlands • Steven White • Wandering Hillbilly National websites:• Agonist• Air America Spark • Al Gore • Alterdestiny • American Street • Atrios • Blog PAC • Burnt Orange Report • Buzzflash • Carpetbagger Report • College Dems • Common Cause • Crooks and Liars • Daily Kos • Democratic Strategist • Democratic Veteran • Democrats.org • Digby's Hullabaloo • DSCC • Eccentricity • Huffington Post • Lefty Blogs • Liberal Oasis • Media Matters • MyDD • Open Secrets • Pam's House Blend • Political Wire • Politico • Progressive States • Seeing the Forest • Senate Guru • Skippy the Bush Kangaroo • Suburban Guerrilla • Swing State Project • Talk Left • Talking Points Memo • TBogg • Think Progress • Truthdig • Working for Change Government websites:• City of Knoxville• Homeless Ten Year Plan • Knox Cnty Commission Forum • Knox County • Knox County Code • Knoxville Code • State of Tennessee • TN Code Annotated • TN General Assembly • U.S. House • U.S. Senate • U.S. Thomas LoC • UT CTAS • UT MTAS Media websites:• Blount Today• Daily Beacon • Farragut Press • Halls Shopper • Hellbender Press • Knox News Sentinel • Knoxville Voice • Maryville Daily Times • Metro Pulse • Mountain Press • South Knox Times • Tennessee Journalilst • WATE • WBIR TV • WVLT TV |
Maybe Sen. Corker should learn more about his own state before trying to propose massive changes to this complex country. I'll bet if he touched base with his constituents he might learn a thing or two.
1. Jimmy Haslam
2. Bob Talbott
3. Anybody Jimmy Haslam or Bob Talbott tell me
to talk to.
Randy, thanks for the link to HR676.
I had health care all my adult life through corporate jobs. When I decided to be self-employed, I had to purchase my own policy. I didn't mind that as much as the approval process and that my husband was not approved. He finally found a carrier, but pays almost the same amount I pay for two kids and me. He could be added to my plan at no additional charge if he didn't have sleep apena (sp?) I do not want national health care, but I would like more comfort that I can't be dropped. Also, we need to allow groups like associations to offer group plans. This would help many get insurance. Group plans would not allow so many to be disqualfied.
But what bothers me most is that people hold on to jobs they don't like because they are afraid to lose their insurance -- what does that do to the energy, creativity and american spirit in this country? It makes everyone feel like caged birds.
There was another story today about the lack of health care providers to take care of the baby boomers.
Good news, Pamela! Since you already say you are self-employed, you can get guaranteed issue coverage for yourself and your husband. You simply incorporate, and make him the President of the company and yourself his sole employee. Then you go apply for group coverage, with a group of 2! It is all legal, and as you apparently already know, group coverage cannot be denied to someone for pre-existing conditions. They can only exclude coverage of that condition, and only that condition, for a one-year waiting period.
Go to your county office and get an employer ID number, then go find a good, reputable agent who deals with small-group health insurance, and the agent should be able to show you a wide variety of plans. Give it a shot!
Rick
This is true. Although, I don't think Pam said her husband was employed with her. Do you even have to incorporate? Can't you just be a sole-proprietor with two employees? I think he would have to be paid something. And, if it does have to be a corporation, why can't Pamela be the President and her husband be the Vice President :) ? As far as health insurance and payroll I don't really think it matters.
Health insurance should be completely divorced from employment. That's one of the huge problems with our current system, from the standpoint of pricing, profits, (insurance company profits that eat into employer's profits), employer intrusion into emoloyee's private affairs, the portability problem you mention, self-employed, unemployed, underemployed, etc. etc.
Opening up Medicare to everyone would not be naiontal health care, it would be national health insurance, and there's a huge difference between that and "socialized medicine" which opponents try to frame it as. It would still be insurance, you would still pay premiums (and it would be mandatory so that everyone is covered), you would still pick your doctors and hospitals (and possibly have even more flexibility), but the difference is that everybody is in one huge group policy so the cost is spread evenly and fairly with no "cherry picking" or exclusions, profits are eliminated, and administrative overhead is streamlined.
I feel objectively free to take issue with one of your points and to huzzah some others.
Huzzah! Of course, let it be noted it was government meddling in the labor market that got employers involved in the first place.
Uh, that's a wee bit misleading. If the Federal Government is directly footing the bills for all health insurance for absolutely everyone, you mean to tell me the government isn't going to take measures to control its costs (setting prescription drug prices, procedure pricing, etc.) or set rules controlling how access is provided and to whom (referring to transplants, experimental procedures, etc.)? He who controls the purse strings controls everything. Once the Federal Government is the only player in the game, distinctions between national health insurance and socialized medicine are just nit-picks. Every hospital, doctor, and nurse in America becomes a federal employee in effect, if not in technical fact. It all starts with a simple phrase, "In order for your business to retain membership in the federal health insurance program, you will need to (fill in the blank)." If you don't believe that, you've got your head in the sand or someplace else limiting visibility. A simple perusal of the myriad - and unrelated to actual business activity - requirements the federal government already has in place for private businesses wishing to compete for federal contacts should be sufficient to convince anyone.
And again, Huzzah!
If the Federal Government is directly footing the bills for all health insurance for absolutely everyone...
They wouldn't be paying the premiums. You would. And I would. Just like we do now. Sure they'd have requirements and payment limits and all that. Just like your insurance and my insurance has now. The only difference is that everybody has it and everybody pays into the same pool, and those who can't afford it get a little help. (We'd also eliminate Medicaid and SCHIP and all that other stuff in the process.)
Who cares who's paying the premiums or even whether or not we're paying a deductible? Such things only matter to the buyer of the insurance, and since national health insurance is both madatory and - by definition - the only game in town, these are just taxes (one a payroll tax, the other a usage tax). The real money being paid for health care will be coming directly from the federal government. One difference between national health insurance and what we have today is that hospitals and doctors' groups get to decide which plans they will participate in and which they won't. The more miserly the reimbursement rates, the fewer physicians choose to participate (hence, the notoriously limited physician choice within the cheapest HMO's). How does a hospital or physicians' group opt out of national health insurance? Who the heck is going to pay out of their own pocket since they're already paying for coverage? The government is paying all the bills, and the government is deciding how much it's willing to pay, when it's willing to pay, and for what it's willing to pay. Sounds a lot like socialized medicine to me, Mr. Neal.
You're turning over complete control of the whole health care delivery and prescription drug markets to the federal government with national health insurance. There's no way around that fact. Just gulp, accept it, and move on. I have... and I'm a free market devotee (even like market anarchy, as Rikki calls it). It's just the market doesn't work in health care/prescription drugs, and realistically won't.
I thought you said you supported a single-payer system? That's exactly what this is.
I just don't have any illusions as to what a single payer system really is. Within the current global healthcare realities and given the current state of our own healthcare system, a single payer option is both an improvement and the only viable longer term solution. It is certainly socialized medicine through the back door. There's going to be huge requirement for voter diligence to keep the government from using its monopoly as a policy tool (ie. exclusion of abortions as an "elective" surgery). But when you add up the dollars and cents, the costs and benefits, compare where we are to where we will be, national health insurance, with all its warts, is an improvement.
Um, most insurance companies don't pay for elective abortions if that abortion is not intended to make a second child viable, save the mother's life or some other extraneous circumstance. Hell, BCBS is notorious for calling obvious miscarriages "elective abortions" and forcing mothers to prove that the did not abort the child themselves.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
if my comments seemed to infer anything opposed to what you cite above. My point was that, under national insurance, there devolves to the public a responsibility for vigilance against the government's use of this insurance to enforce its own policy/sense of morality. Turning over control of our healthcare system invites the government into one of many areas of personal privacy I'd prefer not to have them. Abortion was just an example that leapt immediately to mind.
I work in healthcare and see, daily, the strain on hospitals as people with no coverage come to the ER because they know they'll be seen. Taking tax dollars from working Americans' paychecks for services that may or may not be used according to lifespan is highway robbery. I would gladly pay the feds for healthcare rather than a big fat private insurance company like BCBS. Cuttin' out the middle man can only improve service to patients.
Corker needs to do homework before he makes any proposals. He needs to talk to people in the trenches as well as the population suffering from insurance woes. He is terribly out of touch with reality. As a member of a small group, my PREMIUMS are $1250 per month with $3000 deductible. This is for a family of 4. To get insurance, we have to pay $15,000 per year and get the added benefit of paying a high deductible. Not only do I have to generate enough business to pay these outrageous premiums, but I have to pay salaries of employees, other overhead costs and selfishly I would like to get paid so my kids can eat.
Corker needs to help fix problems in Tennessee. People with commercial insurance should NOT be given TennCare, especially if there is not a catastrophic illness. Just because mommy and daddy are getting a divorce does not mean the kids should automatically be put on TennCare. Yes, there are healthy kids with commercial insurance who are on TennCare. One of the parents goes to DHS, asks for insurance, gets TennCare for the kids even though the other parent has perfectly good commercial insurance on the kids.
There are also people who have commercial insurance, but won't put their kids on the commercial insurance even if the premiums are not any higher. Instead, the kids are on TennCare...this drains taxpayer dollars.
People need to be held accountable for their actions. If they are dishonest about their insurance coverage, they should be held accountable for lying. Those folks who have commercial insurance and TennCare often do not disclose their commercial insurance. They just give their TennCare card. This is a no-no. The commercial insurance has to be filed first, the TennCare second.
Frequent use of the emergency room needs to be addressed. It costs a ton of money to be seen in the emergency room. I guess if my insurance was free and I didn't have to pay a premium for emergency room visits, I would saunter in to the ER when I was sick. In all fairness, many folks go to the emergency room because they can't get off work or they can't get in to see their primary care doctor.
Frivolous law suits drive up the cost of health care. Recently, there was a law suit (fortunately dismissed) against a doctor and a hospital because a rectal exam was performed on a man who had a traumatic head injury. One phone call to a medical care provider would have squashed this law suit. A rectal exam, believe it or not, helps determine neurologic status or impairment. And, no, it is not an evaluation of how high a patient jumps when a rectal exam is performed. The physician and hospital had to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending this suit. Whether or not judgement was in favor of the defendants, the emotional and financial tolls were great.
TennCare should be given for catastrophic illness, not attention deficit disorder. It should not be given as an inheritance from one generation to another. People need to be given TennCare for a limited time. If a person who stays home to raise kids does not have commercial insurance, they should not be given TennCare. They should be advised on how to find a job. Is it fair that I have to work to support my family and also support a stay-at-home parent? I did not sign up to financially support decisions made by others.
Is Corker aware of Trailblazers insurance? So many American citizens can not afford health insurance, nor can employers afford the premius, yet our federal government generously gives Trailblazers insurance to illegal immigrants. HHHHmmmmmm, doesn't sound right.
Don't let anybody tell you kids will suffer. The kids can get care at health departments, low cost clinics, etc. Kids will always get care. The population suffering the most are those who are off parent's insurance, but don't yet have a career or job offering insurance. Those young adults really get hit hard. Although most medical offices offer cash based patients a break on their charges, many adults are not aware of this. Others who get hit hard are the elderly. Medications are so expensive and illness increases with advancing. Patients should always ask for samples of medicines. Samples help patients determine if a medicine is effective with few side effects along with helping lower individual costs.
Obviously, health care coverage as it stands is not working all that well. Insurance companies are not uniform, they make changes constantly and do an exceptional job of trying to avoid reimbursing providers for their work. Yet, the CEO of United Health Care made an appalling amount of money in one year, more than he made in his total career as a physician. He didn't make that money by selling pencils on the street, no, he made the money from insurance premiums paid to UHC and UHC's reimbursement rates.
My message to Corker, get some perspective on reality. I am a tad bit surprised that Corker doesn't have better insight since he was a business owner. Did he provide insurance to his employees or did he have to forego coverage for his employees because health insurance is so expensive? Something needs to change and Corker's proposal is not the answer. I have plenty of concerns, but not many answers. Perhaps my concerns will inspire someone to propose a solution.
Maybe Corker's floating a trial balloon for McCain's campaign on this subject?
And I want to make something clear to all the GOP numb skulls:
Government provided health INSURANCE is not government provided health care!! Got that?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Did anyone catch PBS' "Sick Around the World" recently? It arguably lacked some depth and assumed a light tone for a serious subject, but for a one hour survey of health systems in five "capitalist democracies" it provided enough fodder for some interesting discussions.
Link...
Larry Van Guilder
I saw it twice. Fascinating. Made me want to live somewhere else.
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
It would work if someone was insurable for a $200ish a month policy. What he left out was those that are uninsurable and the ones that might be charged $800 or so a month for a policy.
Post new comment