I've worked since I was 15 (which isn't saying all that much, I guess) but only got health insurance recently, through grad school. Mostly I've had to buy it myself, through a private plan, which is really expensive. And the worst part is, in the sort of jobs where you have to buy health insurance yourself, they pay so badly that you can't afford it. It is about as expensive as my car payment was! I think the Dems are mostly worried about the rising number of large companies with part time workers who don't get benefits, or small companies that don't offer benefits. By making health care insurance unmoored from employment, people with pre-exising conditions aren't trapped in their jobs for the benefits, people who are "under employed" or in small companies can buy plans at the same cheap rate that people who have insurance now pay through their employer's group plan. I am all for it!
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
Erin -- Guess I'm just dense. I believe there are other ways to tackle medical costs than by mandatory insurance. I know I've been spoiled :)
M
lee
· 1 year ago
I totally agree, I have long had a hangup about welfare states. Genuine help for people such as children, disabled is fine - but to simply pay healthy people to sit around on their ass is not. Apart from the financial ramifications, I think it creates a bad mentality - why would one strive for me, if one can achieve income sitting around?
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
AMEN!
sarahsmf
· 1 year ago
From January 2002 until August 2007, minus my two pregnancies, I was without any sort of insurance. I was staying home with the kids because child care would have cost more than what I could have made. To have a family plan with my husband's previous employer (Walmart), it would have cost us almost $300 a month, and that was for the cheapest plan. Now, for the third most expensive plan with my husband's current employer (USPS), it's half that, including dental and vision plans.
Insurance costs are ridiculous, but I don't think forcing every person to be on it is appropriate. Making it available for at least kids, up until the age of 18, for much lower prices, is more important than forcing everyone to get it. Also, having more free/low-cost clinics would be beneficial. Something, anything, to get those with a cold out of the emergency rooms constantly.
I agree that healthcare shouldn't be at the forefront, but it is a big deal, considering how expensive prescriptions can be. Not everyone can take generics (my mother can't).
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
Yes, I believe INSURANCE is not the answer. Managing health care COSTS is.
All insurance does is create more paperwork/red tape/rules/aggravation. It drains money from where it needs to go -- to the doctors, nurses and hospital staff who administer the care the person receives. Having drug companies offer reduced cost drugs (not generic) to people in need is more the direction I would like to see the next administration go in.
M
sarahsmf
· 1 year ago
Oh, I completely agree, but sadly, with how much money drug companies are making, right now, country-wide insurance is about the only thing that'll work, at least as far as I can see.
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
I think if the government were to step in and regulate those drug companies, we might see some relief?
M
sarahsmf
· 1 year ago
Unfortunately, with that, I doubt it would ever happen. That would be taking money out of the politicians pockets, and they can't have that.
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
Yes, they would lose that drug company lobbying money, wouldn't they?
Jodith
· 1 year ago
Do you have any concept of how many employers do not offer health insurance? You've always had health insurance...well bully for you. There are hundreds of thousands of people (at least) that work who do not receive health insurance through their jobs, and for the most part, they don't make enough money to be able to buy private health insurance. And, of course, if they have health problems to start with or have a child with health problems, they often can't get anything but catastrophic coverage, and that at and extremely high price.
I would go into business for myself, except that I can't afford the health insurance. I have chronic health issues, so no private insurer will cover me. I'm forced to work at jobs I hate in order to maintain my health insurance. And I'm lucky enough to have skills that can demand a job that provides health insurance. Think about all the janitors and food service workers and others like them who make minimum wage and don't get health insurance through their jobs. It's not that they don't work. Hell, I'm willing to be they work harder than either of us do. Do they not deserve to have health insurance?
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
Of course they deserve to have health insurance -- I don't think I ever said they didn't -- but wouldn't it be better if they were able to just afford to GO to the doctor or hospital and not have to deal with an insurance company?
Getting health care COSTS under control is something I think would be far more beneficial to poor and underprivileged and chronically ill people.
Insurance (to me) means bureaucratic red tape, limits in care you can receive and then that word MANDATORY just raises my hackles -- sorry.
M
Jodith
· 1 year ago
If people can't afford health insurance, how do you expect them to be able to afford to pay directly for health care, even if you can bring the costs down? If a child needs an appendectomy, how would a parent making minimum wage afford to pay for surgery and hospitialization? How does someone who is chronically ill pay for multiple medications, even cheap ones, when they are on disability?
And what you said was, "GIVE THESE PEOPLE JOBS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE for crying out loud." I pointed out that many of these people already have jobs. Jobs aren't the point. The problem is that their jobs don't come with insurance and they can't afford private insurance. If you're on welfare, no problem becauase you probably qualify for medicaid. It's the working poor that need the help so desperately, and that is who universal health care is aimed at.
One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies. It takes so many people to manage insurance billing. That's a huge cost for medical care right there. And, of course, the majority of those insurance companies are for-profit, so we're also paying the cost of the money right into their stock holders pockets. Not to mention the stockholders of all of those for-profit hospitals and clinics out there...and there's a lot more of them than you would think.
Take the bureaucracy out of health care, which is mostly caused by the insurance companies, put everything under one payer so all rules are the same, and you take a big chunk out of the cost of health care.
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
You say: "One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies"
I think that's what I'm saying -- no insurance. Insurance is a bottomless pit of red tape, a minefield of inefficiency and a potential death trap for some who's coverage is not adequate enough for their needs.
Start by controlling health care costs, provide low cost health care for the indigent, poor and chronically ill (working or not) and help those who are unemployed become employable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want the battle cry to be "affordable health care" not "mandatory health insurance"
M
Jodith
· 1 year ago
By saying we need to get rid of insurance companies, I'm saying we need a single payer system.
And again, you're going off with the "get them a job so they'll have health care" and that doesn't solve the problem. People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is.
If you are employed making a poverty level wage, you are barely going to be able to put a roof over your head and food on the table. That's why they call it poverty. Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?
It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit.
The death rate from treatable cancers is much higher for those living in poverty (note that I did not say unemployed) than for any one else. It's because these people can't afford to go to a doctor until it's too late. They are just barely ekeing out a survival. And there's millions of them out there. The working poor. They get up every day and work their asses off, often at multiple jobs, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. It's not about getting them jobs. They have jobs. It's about providing them something that their jobs won't provide for them.
eyespi20
· 1 year ago
"People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is." And why are you assuming that "Mandatory Health Insurance" is going to be free? Or not have co-payments? Or not have spending limits? But if it's MANDATORY, they'll go to jail if they choose to feed their family over paying the premiums. Like that's going to help?
I'm calling for lower HEALTH COSTS OVERALL. Putting the burden of health care expense where it's controlled -- at the doctor/hospital/drug company level. Not adding bureaucratic costs to take away what money is available to go towards this end which is what I believe will be a by-product of this scheme.
"Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?"
There are already programs in place to help the poor get vaccinations for their children. Again, why do you assume this mandatory health insurance plan is going to be affordable for people at this level? Why do you assume there will be no costs associated with it? Why do you assume it's going to be a cure-all for the situation these families currently find themselves in?
"It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit."
No, I don't think you're being melodramatic -- you're passionate about helping the poor and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. I'm truly not trying to "cut the poor out" of getting help where they need it. I'm trying to get people to think out of the box -- to go to the root of where costs can be controlled and where help -- lasting help -- can be provided to those in need. We are not on opposite sides of this fence -- we are just at opposite ends of a solution.
Rachel Supinger
· 1 year ago
Amen! Thanks for saying it!
TheBobo
· 1 year ago
I agree 100% and I endorse it as well. Couldn't have said it better!
All Comments
M
Insurance costs are ridiculous, but I don't think forcing every person to be on it is appropriate. Making it available for at least kids, up until the age of 18, for much lower prices, is more important than forcing everyone to get it. Also, having more free/low-cost clinics would be beneficial. Something, anything, to get those with a cold out of the emergency rooms constantly.
I agree that healthcare shouldn't be at the forefront, but it is a big deal, considering how expensive prescriptions can be. Not everyone can take generics (my mother can't).
All insurance does is create more paperwork/red tape/rules/aggravation. It drains money from where it needs to go -- to the doctors, nurses and hospital staff who administer the care the person receives. Having drug companies offer reduced cost drugs (not generic) to people in need is more the direction I would like to see the next administration go in.
M
M
I would go into business for myself, except that I can't afford the health insurance. I have chronic health issues, so no private insurer will cover me. I'm forced to work at jobs I hate in order to maintain my health insurance. And I'm lucky enough to have skills that can demand a job that provides health insurance. Think about all the janitors and food service workers and others like them who make minimum wage and don't get health insurance through their jobs. It's not that they don't work. Hell, I'm willing to be they work harder than either of us do. Do they not deserve to have health insurance?
Getting health care COSTS under control is something I think would be far more beneficial to poor and underprivileged and chronically ill people.
Insurance (to me) means bureaucratic red tape, limits in care you can receive and then that word MANDATORY just raises my hackles -- sorry.
M
And what you said was, "GIVE THESE PEOPLE JOBS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE for crying out loud." I pointed out that many of these people already have jobs. Jobs aren't the point. The problem is that their jobs don't come with insurance and they can't afford private insurance. If you're on welfare, no problem becauase you probably qualify for medicaid. It's the working poor that need the help so desperately, and that is who universal health care is aimed at.
One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies. It takes so many people to manage insurance billing. That's a huge cost for medical care right there. And, of course, the majority of those insurance companies are for-profit, so we're also paying the cost of the money right into their stock holders pockets. Not to mention the stockholders of all of those for-profit hospitals and clinics out there...and there's a lot more of them than you would think.
Take the bureaucracy out of health care, which is mostly caused by the insurance companies, put everything under one payer so all rules are the same, and you take a big chunk out of the cost of health care.
I think that's what I'm saying -- no insurance. Insurance is a bottomless pit of red tape, a minefield of inefficiency and a potential death trap for some who's coverage is not adequate enough for their needs.
Start by controlling health care costs, provide low cost health care for the indigent, poor and chronically ill (working or not) and help those who are unemployed become employable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want the battle cry to be "affordable health care" not "mandatory health insurance"
M
And again, you're going off with the "get them a job so they'll have health care" and that doesn't solve the problem. People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is.
If you are employed making a poverty level wage, you are barely going to be able to put a roof over your head and food on the table. That's why they call it poverty. Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?
It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit.
The death rate from treatable cancers is much higher for those living in poverty (note that I did not say unemployed) than for any one else. It's because these people can't afford to go to a doctor until it's too late. They are just barely ekeing out a survival. And there's millions of them out there. The working poor. They get up every day and work their asses off, often at multiple jobs, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. It's not about getting them jobs. They have jobs. It's about providing them something that their jobs won't provide for them.
And why are you assuming that "Mandatory Health Insurance" is going to be free? Or not have co-payments? Or not have spending limits? But if it's MANDATORY, they'll go to jail if they choose to feed their family over paying the premiums. Like that's going to help?
I'm calling for lower HEALTH COSTS OVERALL. Putting the burden of health care expense where it's controlled -- at the doctor/hospital/drug company level. Not adding bureaucratic costs to take away what money is available to go towards this end which is what I believe will be a by-product of this scheme.
"Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?"
There are already programs in place to help the poor get vaccinations for their children. Again, why do you assume this mandatory health insurance plan is going to be affordable for people at this level? Why do you assume there will be no costs associated with it? Why do you assume it's going to be a cure-all for the situation these families currently find themselves in?
"It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit."
No, I don't think you're being melodramatic -- you're passionate about helping the poor and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. I'm truly not trying to "cut the poor out" of getting help where they need it. I'm trying to get people to think out of the box -- to go to the root of where costs can be controlled and where help -- lasting help -- can be provided to those in need. We are not on opposite sides of this fence -- we are just at opposite ends of a solution.