Being diabetic and being younger than65 poses a real problem as we cannot buy private insurance - I couldn't even get mortgage insurance and even more out of the question Life insurance . I am fortunate enough to have a job with insurance - deductible $1000, but then there is an out of pocket max of $3000 so in reality it is $4000 and course this doesn't cover co-pay for doctor visits $50 each plus $30 -$60 co-pays for prescrtions- $60 for insulin and test strips - then the cost of pump supllies. No wonder so many people don't take good care of themselves it is just too expensive. If the government took care of diabetics preventive and maintenace medecine there would be a lot less costly complications.
Hi Susy,
It is extremely complicated and costly and unnecessarily so! One of the reasons I wrote about HSAs is because I think they are the next best thing for the moment, and I wish more employers would offer them as an option to an HMO. They are often not as cheap as an HMO, but can be very close and offer you so much more medical flexibility! Especially for those of us who need specalists like endocrinology! You can pick any doctor you want, now network to deal with! Think of it this way: your HSA deductible is $1100 for the year and with some HSAs after that is met 100% coverage on medical and precriptions! At the start of every year, I could order a blood screen and pump supplies and meet my deductible and the rest of the year my health insurance picks up the tab! That's so much better than the nickel and dime routine of my PPO all year long. I keep looking at it and wondering if I'm missing a major loop hole, but I can't find it!
Each state is going to have to look at their policy on health insurance. It's not just the health insurance companies, but state policies that dictate whether you have another option if you are refused individual coverage by a company.
And to your last comment, we need to learn to take care of ourselves! We only have one body to live in, we have to invest in our health, especially if it's going to cost us more if we don't!!
Thank you for sharing
If you like Goverment Health Care How well did the Goverment portect you retirement accounts, the democrats ruined fannie mae and freddie mac, as late as two years ago the democrats said that everything is just fine at freddie mac and fannie mae. when the truth was that people like Franklin raines was cooking the books so he could get a big bounus. as will as other exc. Obama got a big donation when these companies were in real trouble. Goverment health care NO WAY
Ray Ashe
Oregon
I have to say Ray, I chuckled as I drove past the Fannie Mae building today with it's stately fountain pumping away and it's beautiful brick georgian building in the background, and I thought "I bet inside it doesn't feel as good as it looks on the outside!"
If you are going to blame the Wall Street nightmare on the democrats, you need to come and live in DC to understand that what has happened is not a one party issue! It's been a system in breakdown for many, many years.
Reagan deregulated banking thinking oversight would restrain potential greed. But both Repulbican and Democratic houses left out oversight since the 80s! Why? Not sure, but some surmize the problem to be campaign favors and injection into congressional bills. To date Obama's campaign contributions are 47% corporate to McCain's 44%. Neither is clean of the issue! McCain may tow the line that he will change that, but in fact while his party was in control he couldn't get the job done either! For me, the bottomline is:
1)Corporate America needs to stay out of Washington pockets!
2) What happened to ethical and legal behavior from business leaders? Because they can't be trusted to do the right thing, I think we are stuck with government oversight.
Answer me this: If corporate America can't control themselves then who do we lean on to that?
If you come up with an answer, do share as I'm in debate over the issue!
First let say thank you.
Fannie Mae and Freddie mac has been a peggy bank for the democrat party. and president Bush tried to regulate them in 2000. and Congress said that there is nothing wrong with Freddie mac and Fannie Mae. then the democrates when to work saying the every one in America need to own a home and so the relaxed the criteria for home loans. My wife has been in banking for 25 years and having a 50 to 1 that is that the person could have a loan for a home that was 50% of thier income. Which meant that the person would soon not be able to pay thier morgage. (ubprime loan.) Brought on by the democrates. if you can find a Republican to blame this on please name names.n as a matter of fact Maxine Waters said that Franklin Raines was doing a great job in 2003
and that the investigator should be on trial for saying that Franklin Raines was cooking the book at Fannie mae. Franklin Raines is Obama Top Financial advisor. I feel that Franklin Raines stole millions of dollars from the American People. That is why I say Nationalize Health Care will not work if the goverment get involved.
I also think we need to do away Congress. as is we need to make are congress stay in there respective state. and any bill voted on must be approved by the people and doing away with lobbist completely turn the country back to the people.
Thank you for Reading My rage.
Ray,
We welcome all comments and often blogs are about venting!! I tried hard to make this blog as open as possible and I used more links to various sites as a way of giving as much information as I could to let people determine what they need. I'm not terribly favorable to either health care plan of the candidates, but I wanted to give my side of the story having experienced socialized medicine and our own system here.
One thing I wanted to point out to you, which may lower your blood pressure, is the comment about Frank Raines. Here is a link to information regarding Raines and Obama. Listing whose to blame doesn't create shift in politics, so I won't go there.
What concerns me is that we are loosing some great people in congress because they are moderate. They are the ones who rather than play the blame game look to resolve the issues. My congressman, Tom Davis is one of them. He is retiring after this year, because he feels he is unable to get anything done for his constituents.
I have complained for the last 5 years that news, and television in general, has become too polarizing and we can't see the forest for the trees.
I want to thank you for sharing, even if it is rage! All of us need to start listening to each other!
My best to you!
Ann
In Europe diabetic care is covered by socialized medecine and guess what, there are a lot less diabetics becoming blind or being amputated or having heart problems or kidney failure because they get their testing supplies and insulin for free- here it is so expensive many diabetics don't test frequently enough simply because they can't afford it. diabetic education is also lacking over here, i have been shocked to learn how little some diabetics actually know.
Even with helth coverage it is still really expensive , there must be a happy medium somewhere along the line and unfortunately I don't think any governement can solve the problem without great difficullty. don't you think it is sad that diabetic children are refused pumps because their insurabnce won't cover it and the parents can't afford it?
No Way! Go talk to anyone in Canada about Government Health Care. People will wait months or years to be seen for severe medical conditions and will die waiting. Obama wants to have our Health Care set up just like it is in Canada. Diabetics will be much worse than they are now. As far as pump supplies the companies let you make payments they don't force you to pay all up front. Do you really want everyone in America knowing your medical history and personal business?
One more thing. Last post above about socialism is correct. People need to think for themselves and get themselves out of their own messes. The government should not always be there to bail you out or wipe your butt. If you make a bad decision on a mortgage call your mortgage company and try to fix it. If you can't pay your bills stop using credit cards. Cut off things that are not necessities and if you lose your job go find another one. Millions of places are still hiring. Government controlling everyones every move is NOT the answer. Poor us my husband cannot get life insurance because he is diabetic. We will start saving on our own screw the insurance companies. We stopped using credit cards and are paying our debt. I worked two jobs for several months. We make our own way we dont ask for hand outs.
you said, Evidently you don't read,
you said, Before you go on the attack at least make an educated argument.
implying someone to be illiterate or subtle implications of "stupid" or being "educated"????
An attack?? The only attack I see is yours on someone's difference of opinion.
But alas, do not let you heart be troubled, I will no longer be coming here or taking the newsletter. I am sick of the politics of the intellectual against the intellectual's preceived peon's. Too bad most people don't have the skeletal fortitude to be original and think things through.
We all ready have socialized medicine in the US its called "Welfare". Take a look at how it doesn't work. Can't find a Dr. that will take it, if you do the medical help is sub-par. Prescriptions are just as bad. There is a list of medicines that are covered. It is very short compared to what is covered.
You want socialized medicine? Fine go on welfare. The government is deep enough in MY pocketbook, I can't afford anymore "Govmint Help".
There is a list of medicines that are covered. It is very short compared to what is covered.
should read: There is a list of medicines that are covered. It is very short compared to what is not covered.
Also, who do you supposed will pay for all this "FREE" medical care? It can't be done without raising taxes.
I do not agree with your analysis of the situation. In general, the ability to obtain healthcare coverage is limited. If you work with a large firm that gives good coverage the plans that are offered to you are limited by the state you live. In your example (blog 1) you refer to the plans in Maryland but you are unable to buy that coverage because you live in Virginia. You will also see that from company to company what is covered will vary but the only real way to compare which is a better deal for you is to look at the cost and deductables / co-pays. I believe what Mr. McCain is saying ( although I agree that he does not explain it well) is that you would be able to buy any plan offered in any state. Now, to accomplish this, I believe one additional item needs to be accomplished. The federal Government / Congress / FDA ( whoever) needs to define what would be covered when offering a particular benefit. For example, if you say ( Ins Co) that you have maternity benefits, then that would mean that you cover a) delivery ( any doctors expense), b) new baby care ( any doctors expense) c) romm and board for both mother and baby etc. with specific limits / co-pays / etc. This would allow for transparancy to the purchaser of insurance and allow all companies to price it competitively. One cavaet may be to offer a small cost adjustment by geographic area due to cost of living differences. Additionally, if this model was able to be accomplished then people could select the coverage ( or at least a bundle of coverage, like your cable TV bill) they wanted to be covered for to address the young healthy portion of the population and to minimize the companies risk model. The competition would be between companies and the lower you price the more people would buy it .
I do not agree with your analysis of the situation-
"In general, the ability to obtain healthcare coverage is limited"- says who?- are you aware that we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal coverage?
"Government... needs to define what would be covered when offering a particular benefit"- I agree- so why do we need the middleman insurance co. adding overhead cost?
"The competition would be between companies and the lower your price the more people would buy it."- this sounds wonderful- in fact, it's the exact same argument that was used to privatize healthcare under the HMO system in the first place- of course if you look at facts, the market has been driven to consolidation of massive HMOs which have driven prices up through monopoly power.
The real problem is that none of this addresses the elephant in the room- 40 million Americans have no insurance!- instead of all the red tape you propose to reform the HMO model, it would be simpler and cheaper to just eliminate the middleman for a single payer system.
Thank you for offering such great thought and excellent room for debate!
To comment:
In general, the ability to obtain healthcare coverage is limited. If you work with a large firm that gives good coverage the plans that are offered to you are limited by the state you live. In your example (blog 1) you refer to the plans in Maryland but you are unable to buy that coverage because you live in Virginia. You will also see that from company to company what is covered will vary but the only real way to compare which is a better deal for you is to look at the cost and deductables / co-pays.
This is true. To be clear, when I made state to state comparisons I used the same company and really had to look for comparable plans, none were exactly the same, but I got as close as possible with much help from sales people and online services. States definitely play a roll in what is available to the individual. Portability is an interesting problem to resolve! I've been reading some of the Governors concerns about portability. Transparency will help, but there are some serious questions about how portability will work.
2)The federal Government / Congress / FDA (whoever) needs to define what would be covered when offering a particular benefit. For example, if you say ( Ins Co) that you have maternity benefits, then that would mean that you cover a) delivery ( any doctors expense), b) new baby care ( any doctors expense) c) romm and board for both mother and baby etc. with specific limits / co-pays / etc. This would allow for transparancy to the purchaser of insurance and allow all companies to price it competitively. One cavaet may be to offer a small cost adjustment by geographic area due to cost of living differences.
I love the ICOLA idea!(usually stands for income cost of living adjustment) Uusally when a company moves you from one location to another they can adjust your income for moving to a more expensive location. In some cases that practice already exists.
3) Additionally, if this model was able to be accomplished then people could select the coverage (or at least a bundle of coverage, like your cable TV bill) they wanted to be covered for to address the young healthy portion of the population and to minimize the companies risk model. The competition would be between companies and the lower your price the more people would buy it.
I do feel there is plenty of competition in place, but it's making them be competitive with us! Right now, we are at their mercy because we need it and they have it. I did not write about transparency being what's a pivotal piece b/c both candidates are advocating strongly for it. So much of what we have now can be manipulated and we can't tell. If we do nothing else but force the issue of tranparency it certainly would give us a bird's eye view where we need to go from here!
thank you for sharing such a great piece!
I do not agree with your analysis of the situation-
"In general, the ability to obtain healthcare coverage is limited"- says who?- are you aware that we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal coverage?
"Government... needs to define what would be covered when offering a particular benefit"- I agree- so why do we need the middleman insurance co. adding overhead cost?
"The competition would be between companies and the lower your price the more people would buy it."- this sounds wonderful- in fact, it's the exact same argument that was used to privatize healthcare under the HMO system in the first place- of course if you look at facts, the market has been driven to consolidation of massive HMOs which have driven prices up through monopoly power.
The real problem is that none of this addresses the elephant in the room- 40 million Americans have no insurance!- instead of all the red tape you propose to reform the HMO model, it would be simpler and cheaper to just eliminate the middleman for a single payer system.
To a quick followup to your reply.
1) Talking about "limited access" only refers to the current situation. It can be a big discussion to change that.
2)If 'Middleman' you refer to the Insurance companies....I could not support the government doing it alone.
3)"HMO issue"....That is not the reason prices are up.
4) Your "elephant",... that is a different issue and shouldn't be mixed up with this.
When looking at Obama's plan did you look at the plan of countries like Canada, England, or other European countries? You can't access the medical supplied in these countries (government ran)! I have talked to people who have used these plans and they say it is a mess. If you need an operation, live with the problem because it takes up to 4 years to get scheduled for surgery. You can't see a doctor for illness until you either are cured or end up in the hospital next to death. Cancer patients that die because the operation they needed was delayed due to not being able to schedule surgery. I can live without a government ran medical insurance--socialized medicine. At least McCain is giving non-government plans a chance to work.
hellooo- are you aware that the US already has socialized medicine?- it's called medicare and the VA system- you should look em up sometime before calling all your Canadian, English, and European friends.
You really are missing the point in all your rants here- the problem is that over 40 million of your fellow citizens have no insurance!- the only way to afford dignity for these citizens is universal coverage- nobody cares if you or I can "live without it"- let's give them the same opportunity.
"At least McCain is giving non-government plans a chance to work"- is this a joke?- where HAVE you been- the non-government plans were given a chance to work by Nixon in the 70s, and have had the past 35 years to work, and what do we have?- the most expensive system with the least coverage and no better outcomes. At least Obama is giving government plans a chance to work!
In part 1 of this blog, I stated that I had lived in England and particpated in their socialized medicine. There was some concern when I went over there that it would not work for me. But I ended up in a privatized practice where I paid for my office visit and it was great care! Better than what I have over here now! The fees were actually quite nominal, nothing like the charges we put up with here and prescriptions were cheap.
I think no matter what system you are under there will be problems and hiccups. We certainly have our rate of failure in this country to get people the care and surgeries they need, but often it is not disclosed because of settlement deals. Both candidates are correct in that we need more transparency in the system.
Given the economy, I think we should face the fact that we have to work with the system in place which would give you what you want a free market, but some serious changes need to take place to justify the salaries and perks these companies are giving and asking you to pay for!
And that $5000. is for families. Individuals are $2500. My insurance is $558.00 so I know exactly what you mean!
I don't pretend to know the answer. Obama's plan is so massive, I don't see how he can get it congressional approval, and McCain's plan just doesn't represent that he would advocate for changing the system enough to get control over corporate greed, or that he is an advocate for the small business owner.
I am so very unhappy to have politics discussed on this otherwise wonderful web site.
I will be leaving this site immediately.
I'm sorry you feel this way! This blog written about the problem that I see in health insurance, which is corporate greed. And the fact is we need to change it. I used the candidates health care plans because they were easily accessable and it is something people will use in voting.
Many bloggers on this site can't qualify for health insurance becuase, well we have a disease that insurers don't want. So for me, the questions is how can we change the system? I know that I absolutely need coverage and so where do you go? It's not designed to be politically charged, but it goes there because of the topic.
Personally, I'm not in favor of either plan. I think this topic needs to be solved and I would love to see a citizen's solution to the problem.
HIS PLAN SOUNDS LIKE THE UNIVERSAL PLAN OF CANADA. ASK THE CANADIANS--IT DOES NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE. YOU ARE JUST A NUMBER. IF YOUR NUMBER IS CALLED FOR BEING TAKEN CARE OF YOU ARE LUCKY. ONE WOMAN IN PARTICULAR HAD A BROKEN HIP. BY THE TIME SHE WAS APPROVED TO HAVE IT TAKEN CARE OF--SHE WAS ALREADY DEAD. SOME HEALTH PLAN THAT IS. NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
So what's your suggestion? No change? Where in McCain's plan does it secure that he will fix the "reward game"? He too feels there will have to be some oversight. Using the words "non profit" makes it feel less like government, but it still will be.
I've stated before every system has problems and hiccups, our current system here has a rate of failure, but it is not disclosed because of settlement deals.
Both candidates talk about transparency, and that is needed for us to understand our own system. Maybe that's a good place to start in order to see how to fix the problem and either reshape our current system or build one that aspires to what's best about America!
PRES. BUSH PUT INTO AFFECT THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS. BECAUSE OF THIS, I FINALLY CAN GO TO THE DOCTOR FOR MY DIABETES, LUPUS, FIBROMYALGIA, AND HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE. MY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE TAKEN CARE OF AND I CAN FINALLY AFFORD TO GO TO A SPECIALIST WHEN NEEDED. IT IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM. IT WORKS, AND I DON'T WANT IT CHANGED. I HAVE OTHER FRIENDS WHO ALSO COULD NOT AFFORD TO GO THE DOCTOR AND GET PRESCRIPTIONS AND NOW THEY ARE FINALLY BEING TAKEN CARE OF. THANK YOU PRES. BUSH. NO MORE CHANGE IN HEALTHCARE.
Ahhh, if you are on medicare advantage, there is something to gleen here! Medicare is a government program. When I turn 65, I too can have healthcare coverage regardless of my health issues! When I turn 65, I have 31 days to apply for guarantee issue medicare plan. And for many, that's the issue at hand! Shouldn't everyone have the right to be receive health insurance regardless of age, like medicare recipients?
Because I'm not 65 and I live with diabetes, I can't receive health insurance coverage unless I'm in a group plan. Many working in small businesses either can't afford the health insurance offered, or don't have access. So they go and apply for a policy and let's say they have diabetes, fibromyalgia or lupus, they are automatically denied coverage. To add to their problem the option to get state assisted health care does not exist like Va, or they live in a state with guaranteed issue, like Massachusetts with a very high price. You, my lucky friend, do not have to worry about that anymore!
I'm glad to hear that you like your advantage plan, I've had other people tell me they like their advantage plans too!
Thank you!
We are currently fighting for custody for my step son. He is 14 and is 270 pounds! His mother has always held a job to which her son could have better health insurance, but she wants to have him on medical. (she is court ordered to provide)We own a small business that is tied to the mortgage industry. Health insurance, well we just can't afford. Not to mention my step son is uninsurable due to his pre-diabetic status and pre-heartcondition along with his weight. I looked into Healthy Familys for him because we currently qualify for medical. Problem is he resides in Orange county and we are in San Diego county. The state says he can only be provided non-emergency care in Orange county. When he is with us we can only take him to the ER. And he can only be signed up in only one county. So now we have a mother who is not taking care of her child and a Father who is trying to get the help he son needs. Mom will not pay for 1/2 the cost and the courts quite honestly really suck in getting these things taken care of. So we end up paying out of pocket which as you might know doesn't tickle.
With this said I think both canadates need to really understand what we have and what we don't so they can fix the problems, and right now they don't.
This goes back to the portability issue and also transparency. With many families being split, this issue gets even harder! I have 3 step children and for many years we covered their medical. It was really hard as we never lived in the same state as the kids and we would have to fight to know what was going on with them. Information was easier to access when the kids were on my husband's insurance, however it made it very difficult for their mom when insurance considered them out of network!
McCain wants a single national market for health insurance. This means that all state mandates will be eliminated. In Connecticut, this would mean losing the mandates that require insurance to provide diabetes testing equipment, post-partem restrictions on when a woman can leave the hospital and about 24 other insurance mandates. It would be a race to the bottom.
McCain's plan is essentially the Bush plan from '04 warmed over. The objective seems to be to eliminate grouip coverage through employers--the clear outcome as healthy employees opt for individual coverage and the wealthy build up HSAs. Employer based plans will increasingly cover those with pre-existing conditions, are over 45, and are at-risk. This will drive up premiums, forcing employers (except the largest, wealthiest companies) to drop group coverage.
McCain offers no protection for those with pre-existing conditions or older workers (pre-medicare covered 65); premiums on policies for these folks can run to $30,000 a year with a $5000 deductible (I know a lymphatic cancer survival who had to pay this for his coverage!!).
Finally, the McCain plan TAXES health care premiums paid by the employer as income. In my case, where I have a very good plan, and pay about $3000 annually in premiums, my taxes would go UP by about $2500--so after his $5000 credit, I would see a tax increase. In point of face, $5000 does not pay for very good coverage.
FC
I believe the Obama plan is fairly solid, and would do much to reduce the problem of underinsurance and no insurance. It is especially important for children--health issues and educational outcomes are closely interwined. Improving children's access to health care is thus important for improving educational outcomes.
The Obama plan is also I think politically feasible (no small consideration) because it does not attempt to pre-empt the health insurance companies. Even so, redefining their role (taking them out of the business of rating individuals, where they spend nearly a third of the premium income screening people out) will be a political challenge.
Finally, I think the Obama plan preserves a lot of flexibility for households and businesses.
Fundamentally, the Obama plan is conservative, building on existing relationships and institutions. The McCain plan is both radical--it would fundamentally change the framework within which households get health insurance--and would increase the problem of under- and un-insured. Economic studies consistently point to this outcome because of the way the McCain makes employer-based group insurance more expensive, leading to a reduction in such plans, and because of the elimination of state mandates. The McCain plan would thus make access to health coverage in all likelihood significantly worse--yes, worse--than it already is. Frankly, I find it hard to fathom why McCain would embrace such a plan--though it is consistent with his broad embrace of the Bush agenda over the last two years. Quite a shame--it is hard to envision the old John McCain promoting such a policy.
Featuring Content From:
By using this service, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them. The consumer health information on is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. You should promptly seek professional medical care if you have any concern about your health, and you should always consult your physician before starting a fitness regimen. Copyright © 2012 Remedy Health Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A man was found wandering around America in broad daylight, holding a lantern and crying "I seek single-payer, I seek single-payer!"- the people gathered around him and jeered- he was obviously a looney- so the man went up the mountain and said "my time has not yet come- they don't understand"
sigh- so what do those who want single-payer do?- we were on track to vote for Edwards, but he got a little too busy on his campaign trail- I guess we now have to vote for an independent, or hold our nose and vote for Obama. Regardless of what happens, let's hope the economy turns enough so that the government will have enough economic leverage to extend coverage.