Op-Ed - A Public Option That Works - NYT »
Posted By deathray 3 months ago in Political Opinion
TWO burning questions are at the center of America’ s health care debate. First, should employers be required to pay for their employees’ health insurance? And second, should there be a “ public option” that competes with private insurance?
Read Full Story at www10.nytimes.com »
483 Views Share Story 33 Comments Report
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 31 of 33 Comments (view all)
-
94%
deathray3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the oped points out the structure of the public health care system in san francisco. while not necessarily insurance it points out two salient facts:
Reply
1. there really is no requirement for some private for profit entity to insert itself into the middle of a health care transaction
2. management of health care need not be such an onerous task.
now, i don't know if this model is extensible, or can be taken national, or can work in rural areas, but i'm willing to bet that it can be part of the solution, because it addresses many of the concerns of the small business community.-
100%
deathray3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh, and here's the link for those who don't wish to subscribe to the NYT:
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22dow.ht... -
50%
Endoscopy3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If what is happening in Massachusetts is so great why is a hospital there suing the State because the first year they lost $38 million and with lowered projected payments they will lose $100 million. They are bankrupting the health care providers. They are lowering the payments because the state does not have enough money to pay for it.
Reply
look at the above link.
Notice that in SF the places are having to raise their prices to pay for it. That means that everybody that gets the product or service pays for the health care forced on them. What then? If this is done nationwide that means inflation. Great idea making everything cost more. Then to pay for the rest the taxes will have to go up. Such a great plan. Why do liberals think it will be free????
-
-
89%
gamahuche3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Conclusion of the Article:
Reply
The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model — in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage — has not led to the kind of job losses many fear. The public option has also passed the market test, while not crowding out private options. The positive changes in San Francisco provide a glimpse of what the future might look like if Washington passes substantial health reform this year.
***
When you're healthy you resent paying it, when you desperately need treatment you wish you had it.
What is really problematical with private commercial health insurance is that when the chips are down the companies try utmost to avoid paying if they can get away with it.
This is far worse, for all but the very rich, than living in a situation where the health-care is not top notch but is guaranteed to be without charge.
That said - I have never seen a country where the health issue was a party-political issue in the same way as it is in the US.
BTW DR - I congratulate you personally on having been able to ride 1st Class on your tough journey through the system.
Now what is going to be the outcome for those who don't have their fare paid?-
100%
deathray3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, gama, this is only true for people in my situation, as beau pointed out in his submission yesterday, people who qualify for medicaid can get a single organ transplanted, but those who get medicare qualify for multi-organ transplants.
Reply
the medicare coverage continues until:
a) one year after the last dialysis, or;
b) three years after the last transplant.
i didn't see any difference in the transplant process or care after the surgery that was preferential of private insurance over medicare. i was able to pick my surgeon, but the entire team is top notch.
the real question is care after the time limit of medicare, or you don't have a no limit insurance policy, or you lose your private coverage, what happens?
this sort of health care is expensive, and monitoring 9and pharmaceuticals) are required for the rest of your life.
i'm socking money away just to make sure i never end up in that situation, lord forbid.
-
-
-
-
Mannix2009Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned7 Replies
-
100%
Natureboy3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's an interesting and viable transitional model for a city that wants universal coverage but which has to act within a larger insurance model that is non-universal and privatized.
Reply
One reader commented that it wouldn't be practical for the whole of California, or for the nation. True, but irrelevant. It was not conceived to be a solution for California or for the nation - it is a transitional solution for a large, progressive city.
If the California legislature can get their single-payor bill past the Terminator, the need for a city-based plan like this will be obviated. But until we can get state or national single-payor in place, such a model may be an inspiration for other large, progressive cities.-
Neutral
plowshare2 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Natureboy-- you say, "It was not conceived to be a solution for California or for the nation - it is a transitional solution for a large, progressive city."
Reply
--------------------
The Op-Ed contributors to the New York Times certainly seem to have conceived it that way.
And note, an integral part of the SF plan, according to them, is: "Enrollees with incomes under 300 percent of the federal poverty level have heavily subsidized access, and those with higher incomes may buy into the public program at rates substantially lower than what they would pay for an individual policy in the private-insurance market."
To give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't think they would endorse that "300 percent" detail for the nation as a whole: with the federal poverty level being over $40,000 per year for a family of four, can you imagine what a small percentage of people would NOT be subsidized? How many families of 4 do you know where the income is over $120,000 per year? San Franciscoans may be exceptions but I doubt that even the average family of 4 in the SF metropolitan area (which has close to ten times the population of SF itself) makes anywhere near that much.
But quibbling over percentages aside, I think any heavily subsidized federal "public option" would give the final lie to the claim that no tax dollars will go into paying for elective abortions; the cost will NOT all be borne only by the people who actually use the public option.
On the other hand, if the federal public option is NOT heavily subsidized, then what we will see is people being coerced to get insurance for themselves that they might be better off without. People with especially good health and healthy lifestyles will be forced to pay insurance at rates more appropriate for people who do not have healthy lifestyles.
-
-
-
90%
Tumultuous3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have little faith for a 2009 resolution to health care reform. The positive results of the San Francisco case study mean little or nothing to those fundamentally against health care reform. Those who dissent care more about corporate profits vs. the common good of the American citizenry.
Reply
Then we have the Democrats who are too afraid to take a stand against the GOP, regardless of having a overwhelming House majority. Claiming to want a bipartisan bill to reconcile the desires of both parties, Democrats instead hoist the white flag of surrender and political cowardice.
-
-
100%
orndorffter3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My mother had no health care and therefore could not see a doctor but would go to the ER. They sent her home and said there waas nothing wrong with her , she was haveing bad chest pain and the next day she had the pain agan so I took her into the ER and had to demand she had tests done on her and I paid for it all, they admitted her because she die in the emegancy room she was dead for 11 min, you know what that meant she was brain dead and in a coma she died from a massive Heart Attack. Everyone needs health care, if she would have, I believe with all my heart think she would still be with us. good artical.
Reply-
-
100%
Newperson3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OD
Reply
I have heard so many stories like this I to have had a familey memember die.
Because there was no ins. I turly am sorry for you.
It is people like your mother. And so many more that I hope we will someday soon have a heahthcare plan in place. -
-
-
100%
Bopi3653 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting... The repugs will always state that there are small businesses on the fringe , struggling to survive. This even as those businesses hire low paid individuals with no health care ( they do have access to the ER) to help make that business a success.
Reply
I would have thought that 8 yrs of Bush tax cuts would have dealt with said struggling businesses long ago without the burden of actually having to look after their employees.
In other words... haven't these "struggling" businesses gotten a free ride long enough.
Irony...A friend of mine owns a small business and employs only teens. The teens are unreliable but she can't hire adults because she can't pay enough or offer benefits.
She doesn't see the cost benefit of hiring an adult and wouldn't do it anyway because she will not offer health insurance (too expensive). She is a republican. ( who sells ice cream)
go figure.
more irony.. the small business owner in this case is insured through her husbands job.
Just think of all the wallmarts, targets etc that get away with not paying any kind of premium due to their employees spouses taking up the insurance slack. (their employees are only offered part time work)
Its no wonder there is such a unified front against any kind of reform. Wallmart would have to finally pay up.-
Neutral
chevydog3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They're not all large employers. My wife is a nursing manager for a small private nursing home run by a religious order. They simply can't afford to pay health insurance for spouses. So she gets employer-provided; and I have to go the private route.
Reply
And as an aside, people around here are beating down the doors --lousy benefits or no-- to work at WalMart.
-
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.