9 Responses to “Help Understanding Obama’s Health Care Plan?”

1. 

   RIGHTEOUS ONE said on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 7:04

   As far as healthcare reform is concerned, I agree that some things have not been conducted in such a way by private insurance carriers as to be always what is best for their overall clients. It is after all a for profit business so this should not be surprising to anyone. The health care system, from the insurance industry to the messed up and totally unmanageable medicare and medicaid programs do need some fixing no doubt.
   When it comes right down to it, I believe in all sincerity that the American people are allowing themselves to be pushed into taking sides (political) on the issue…which is not good for any of us. Like anything else, the health care industry does need an overhaul.
   Reforming regulations that would force EVERY private health care company to provide several options for EVERY individual in the country to compete with Public Option Healthcare which the government is currently offering, and I believe it’s the best way to go.
   For example, why not put in regulations that ANY private health care insurance company must offer at least three options to anyone who comes to them requesting information on their plans. Three benefit options, three premium amounts. Each company would then have to (in order to stay in business) meet certain requirements’… No turning anyone away who is willing and able to pay the premium, no denying ANY coverage of something regardless of past medical history etc., just like how Public Option coverage is. Then, the private companies would be forced to compete for YOUR premium dollars.
   If the playing field is made level, then true competition will exist. The company who is willing to accept a little less profit will have the most to gain. I do not believe that a public option alone would be healthy for either our business climate or for individuals. I am not afraid of what they will do as far as end of life decisions since I, ultimately will be the one who will be making the last call by making prior arrangements with my doctor.
   I do not oppose the government subsidizing (therefore taxing me more) those people who through no fault of their own are unable to afford a decent health insurance policy. It happens..and I do feel obligated to do my part in helping my community, and their immigration status means nothing as far as I am concerned. However, I would object to subsidizing their entire life through special social programs to provide for their needs. These programs such as welfare, food stamps, etc. were designed to help tax payers when the needs arise.
   If people can stop with the policital rhetoric and the demonization of one another long enough to look at the whole thing realistically, I would think in a reasonable amount of time, with regulation and good business models, many things could be done that would benefit us ALL.
   Here’s also the Yahoo link debunking the FALSE BELIEFS that’s going around.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_o…
2. 

   Tmess2 said on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 7:09

   The problem is that contrary to what you may have heard, President Obama does not have a health care plan. Instead, he has outlined general principles for Congress to use in drafting legislation. There is currently legislation in Congress written by four Congressional Committees with a fifth Congressional Committee still working on its draft. At some point, these committees will have to work out the differences and present one plan for a vote.
   What Obama is trying to do, whether through a public option or through co-ops or through some other mechanism, is try to create a non-profit organization that can be competitive with for-profit insurance companies. Under the current system, one or two insurance companies have a near monopoly over health care where you live.
   For a public option or coop to be successful, it will need to get enough market share to get similar rates from doctors and hospitals as the big insurance companies. If it does, then the lack of overhead and the lack of a need to turn a profit, would allow the public option to charge lower rates forcing the big insurance companies to lower their rates too.
3. 

   clocknek said on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 8:29

   Well, it isn’t health care that is being argued over, but insurance.
   Basically, it is making a way for affordable health care for the large number of Americans that do not have it at all. Rather than let people die in the streets to easily treatable conditions, Obama is demanding congress design a bill that makes coverage affordable. The way they are doing this is by creating a public insurance option, to compete with private insurance companies…hopefully forcing them to drive down price. If they don’t, the public option will be available and designed to be affordable to everyone, so that we all can go to the hospital if we need to.
4. 

   doinou said on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 12:18

   Health care will be rationed and compromised. The plan is for healthy people with the hope of keeping them healthy, but will not provide quality care for seriously ill or elderly. The seniors will have their social security and medicare taken from them to pay for substandard care for younger folks, and they will be denied care themselves, instead being counseled on ending their lives for the good of society. Supporters do not realize the danger of their loved ones being denied care.
5. 

   Marvin the Martian said on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 18:25

   Do you own a car? Are you a US citizen?
   The United States government owes its creditors 11,000,000,000,000 dollars. Your share of it is a low end Porsche. Do you have the money to buy a Porsche?
   Obama plans to increase your share of that debt to one Ferrari. Do you have the money to buy a Ferrari?
   Basically in your lifetime you are going to have to buy someone a Porsche that you will never drive, sit in, or even see for that matter.
   Obama’s health care plans means that you will have to buy that person a Ferrari instead.
6. 

   ?Lakita. said on Thursday, November 5, 2009, 0:44

   Ok, here is a young way to explain it to you if this helps…
   basically all poor people who cant afford health care are sucking taxes from other “hard working” people, Every hard working person for a fact (basically just every working), and basically giving the health care to people who NEED it. Instead of letting them suffer through life no caring what conditions they’re in. Because pretty much a wide majority of people are selfish and don’t care about anyone besides themselves; and Obama kind of wants to fix that.
   Now watch how many thumbs down i get lmao.
7. 

   oyldbatt said on Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6:58

   well there is a copy of the bill on the internet, it would take you months to read it, and Obama hasnt even read it, i rest my case!
8. 

   Anthony W said on Thursday, November 5, 2009, 12:15

   Simply put, you and your kids will be paying for it.
9. 

   J&J said on Thursday, November 5, 2009, 17:04

   That’s the problem. President Obama and the Democrats have not explained their plan in a clear and easy to undertand manner.
   This article (see link) is the best Q&A I have found on the program.
   The second link is current house version of the bill.
   “Fact versus fiction: What’s really in the Democrats’ health care reform bill
   BY TODD SPANGLER
   Detroit Free Press
   The health care reform debate in Washington has led to many charges and countercharges about what the proposals would or wouldn’t do. Here’s a look at the House Democrats’ bill.
   QUESTION: Would the legislation require people on Social Security to have end-of-life treatment consultations with their doctors?
   ANSWER: No. It would allow Social Security to pay for such consultations every five years, though, if the patient wants one. It’s not mandatory.
   Q: Could I keep my current insurance, like President Barack Obama has said?
   A: Maybe. If you have your insurance through your employer like most people, and your employer decides to keep offering it (and it already meets federal minimum standards that will be set), then sure. But those standards aren’t set, so it’s hard to say what they would require — and it’s tough to know how many employers would keep offering health care if a public plan was available.
   Q: I have an individual insurance plan, but not through my employer. Would I be able to keep it?
   A: It could be grandfathered in, yes. But if the insurers made any change — like in benefits or premiums — they would have to meet the federal standards.
   Q: Would I have to have health insurance?
   A: Yes. Otherwise you would face a tax penalty.
   Q: Would I have to enroll in the new public insurance plan?
   A: No. In fact, if your company offers health insurance, you couldn’t. The new plan would be for individuals and small businesses that can’t afford coverage. Big companies could provide insurance or pay 8 percent of payroll and let employees find their own insurance as individuals on the health care exchange (which would include the public plan and other providers).
   Small businesses would participate in the exchange, offer their own insurance or pay 2-6 percent of payroll to let workers find their own insurance as individuals.
   Q: What if I couldn’t afford the premium of the new public plan?
   A: The legislation would provide “affordability credits” that would help households with incomes up to four times the federal poverty limit (or about $88,000 for a family of four).
   Q: Would the plan cover people living in the country illegally?
   A: No.
   Q: How would the public plan affect private insurance?
   A: The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, says the number of people without insurance would drop by 33 million (out of a projected 49 million in 2011). If all employers are eligible for the exchange, the number of people with private insurance would drop by 83 million. If only small employers were eligible for the exchange, private coverage would drop by 35 million.
   Q: How much would the change cost?
   A: The Congressional Budget Office estimates government costs would increase by more than $1 trillion over 10 years, but additional revenues and cost-saving measures would bring the impact on the federal deficit down to $239 billion over 10 years.
   Q: Would there be new taxes to pay for it?
   A: There could be a sliding surcharge on the income of the top 1.2 percent of earners. It would apply to families with income of more than $350,000 a year and individuals making at least $280,000. The surcharge would be only on income over the thresholds. It would range from 1 percent to 5.4 percent (for families making more than $1 million).
   Q: Would the legislation require insurance plans to pay for abortion?
   A: No. Abortion coverage could not be part of the most basic coverage plan in its present form. But that doesn’t mean abortions couldn’t be covered in other plans. There is, however, a restriction on the government paying directly for the procedure.
   Q: How would the legislation control costs?
   A: It calls for applying cost-containment formulas intended to protect against overpayment to various services, including hospitals, hospice and home health care. It also calls for cutting payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans, saving $156 billion over 10 years. “