Ned Lamont: "National Health by getting employers to cover workers"

[papau]

NOT SINGLE PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH (a progressive -and many Dem - goal)(on George's show)

he's not extending Medicare to all ages (a current Dem proposal)

he's not covering all children to age 18 via Medicare as a start (a Dem proposal)

But he's for the Insurance Companies keep the profits, the return on "risk" cost that need not be a cost under Medicare, the CEO salaries, the stock holder 15% returns growing 15% year after year until it is bigger than the whole economy - indeed it is the universal Health thar Mitt pushed through in Massachusetts with the Dems agreeing so as to get a start on covering the uninsured - and with the Dems avoiding the war with the Casualty Insurance Industry that does not want to become a low profit "administrative services only" organization.

But although I understand the patriotic insurance companies are threatening to move such jobs to India if that passes, companies like the MET - which does not even have a health insurance line - have already announced the India based 2000 person administrative center.

Why does Lamont fear single payer national health? I thought he was on board on this.

[Warpy]

1. He's a rich man who doesn't get it

He thinks in terms of wealthy corporations, not mom and pop stores. He thinks in terms of for profit insurance companies, not taxpayer funded, low overhead, no profit insurance.

The rich are all very limited in their thinking.

It's important to dump Lieberman and send a message to the party that the age of conservatism is just about over. Lamont won't be a huge improvement, though, and perhaps in 2012 someone who is will mount a successful challenge.

However, don't expect him to think like anything but what he is: a rich man.

[rodeodance]

2. Lamont IS a business person first and foremost. Remember that.

[rfranklin]

7. Connecticut is the home of many insurance companies...

He can't risk arousing the ire of all those company executives (and workers)who depend on selling insurance policies for their salaries and bonuses.

[rodeodance]

3. a camillion can turn colors to suit the envioment but underneath he is

still a camillion.

[MrBenchley]

12. The Unknown Camillionaire (snicker)

[ihelpu2see]

4. And what has Joe purposed?

Nothing. At least Ned puts forward ideas and ways to make America a better place, instead of Joe who has pushed America backwards with his support of Supreme Court Justices from Clarance Thomas to Alito and for Joes support of death in the Middle East.

[CTLawGuy]

5. hey, no one's perfect

at least he believes everyone should be covered, which is better than Joe.

[jdlh8894]

6. National Health by getting employers to cover workers

But what about the millions that don't have "employers"(in other words unemployed)!!

[DocSavage]

22. If

an empoyeer wanted to, they could say, OK, I will cover you, but you take care of your family.

[Bjorn Against]

8. Yeah Lamont is not the best candidate we could have got...

But he is still a hell of a lot better than Lieberman.

[twiterpatted]

9. We have his now and it has failed.

Insuring everyone is not profitable, thus the need for government insurance. Insuring old people is not profitable, thus medicare and Medicaid.

He must get his head around this.

[MrBenchley]

10. I am reminded

of socialist hero Paul Hackett....and how HIS champions, many of whom have switched to the Unknown Millionaire, screamed for months here about what a fine left wing champion of progressive values Paul was (and dishonestly pretended his opponent was a "Republicrat/DLCer/corporowhore/yaddayadda")...

Then Deport 'em all Paul opened his yap, and it turned out his positions on many issues were indistinguishable from nutso Tom Tancredo.

[papau]

14. :-)

:-)

[Rose Siding]

11. Part of his plan does include extended medicare, and "ability to pay"-

The full plan is available at the link. This is a summary-

Ned Lamont Health Care Summary

Ned Lamont today released his prescription for America’s broken health care system: a plan to provide accessible, affordable health care coverage for all Americans.

Ned’s plan contains three essential elements:

Protect and expand existing health care coverage.

1. Strengthen employers’ commitment and ability to finance health care for workers
a. Employer-based coverage remains in effect and existing comprehensive
benefits maintained.
b. Employers provide coverage for all workers or contribute to public pool.
c. Offer option of a health insurance pool modeled on the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program or ability to participate in an expanded Medicare program.
d. Core benefits based on benefits in FEHBP.
2. Expand coverage of children in low-income families by expanding eligibility
for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, called HUSKY in Connecticut)
3. Let individuals without coverage at work purchase coverage based on ability to pay

Make health care coverage affordable for all.

1. Focus on true cost control that reduces inefficiencies and waste
2. Provide cost relief to employers
a. Option of insurance pool or ability to participate in expanded Medicare
takes advantage of large group rates and savings
b. Provide targeted subsidies to assist small business
c. Government to provide support for catastrophic coverage
d. Government to establish a national preventive care program
3. Provide federal support for added state costs to expand Medicaid and SCHIP.
4. Base individual cost of coverage on ability to pay
5. Use funds redirected from current spending (e.g. on “uncompensated care”)
to reallocate toward making cost affordable.

Reduce costs and increase quality by smarter spending.

1. National commitment to wellness.
a. Focus on preventing diseases, using screening and physical exams to
catch and correct problems before they happen, rather than treating
them after they occur.
b. Assess effectiveness of treatment options, and implement elsewhere
those practices and protocols that work well
c. Make critical health care information available to those who need it
to manage care and control costs
2. Control prescription drug prices.
a. Permit Medicare to negotiate the best drug prices, as the Veterans’
Administration is now permitted to do (with an average savings over
Medicare of 46%)

http://nedlamont.com/issues/28/health-care

[papau]

15. "Employer-based coverage remains in effect " -if temporary -OK -but

if part of his basic approach - it sucks.

[MercutioATC]

13. Single-payer is NOT the only (or best) option.

We should pursue the course Howard Dean spoke of in the primaries.

Expand the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to cover all U.S. citizens...premimums would be on a sliding scale based on income and anybody would be able to opt out if they chose.

For basic information on the program:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

[papau]

16. I believe single payer is the best /cheapest -best cost to benefit -but

the Dean/Ned Expand the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program to cover all U.S. citizens...premimums would be on a sliding scale based on income approach is a start if we are limited to a "start".

As an actuary I designed, priced , and calculated the financial results for these programs for a while - and that experience left me wondering why society tolerated the insurance company as middle man approach that required so much welfare money if the US was to even get close to appearing interested in the health care of the non-rich.

[MercutioATC]

18. My opinion differs for two reasons, ease of transition and choice.

I believe the current political/economic climate will not allow for a single-payer system for a couple of reasons:

1) There is a lot of lobby money coming from insurance companies. It would take years to overcome the resistance to single-payer in Congress...if it could be overcome at all.

2) The logistics and economic cost of making the transition would be prohibitive.


I also have an issue with the single-payer system as it relates to consumer choice. I'd much rather have a program that allowed the consumer to choose from 6-10 different individual health insurance plans than a program that forced people into a standardized plan.

[papau]

23. I agree as to ins lobby, believe transition would as easy as it was with

Ford, GM when they moved from Health insurance to hiring insurance companies for administrative services only on health back in 60's- indeed ASO contracts are the standard form in Fortune 50 companies. There is no "economic cost" for the transition - there is only the savings from a 20% load going to a 3% load - just as Ford found out and as John Hancock Ins - the health insurance carrier for Ford - found out and handled easily. The Hancock redeployed the capital that was release into expansion in other profitable areas of financial services - hiring more people, while the forms/claims processing folks continued as if nothing had changed.

As to consumer choice, there is no real consumer choice as the coverage has always been based on ability to pay - with the Federal income tax picking up the slack caused by the insurance company search for low/no claim policyholders which left the uninsured to be paid for via welfare or subsidy costs paid to get health providers to agree to care for these folks in the emergency room. The current medical account results show a savings that is just more money going to welfare as folks don't pay medical bills for lack of money, and indeed health costs rise for society as a whole as folks avoid preventive care so as to avoid the cost. The latest studies even discuss the fact that too large a deductible causes folks to effectively go uninsured as they see collecting a benefit as only a remote possibility - so sales for the insurance companies go down - again as welfare and subsidy costs rise and are reflected in taxes.

The Mitt idea of employment based, employers are forced to provide insurance via insurance company developed affordable profitable polices for the poor just means that policies that pay very little out for claims will be offered - with welfare costs/state subsidies to health providers for services given to those not insured or under insured picking up the tab and folks paying fore that in taxes. Then Welfare costs are cut by cutting benefits and the poor die as health providers decide that going bankrupt by accepting fees that do not cover costs - with no subsidy - is nuts - so they refuse service and refuse to hire help and lock in costs they can't afford.

And indeed with single payer universal offering a base level of coverage that is universal and paid by taxes, the insurance companies can offer supplemental policies with as many variations in the additional coverage as the market wants.

[islandspirit]

26. What is 'standardized plan'?

I don't understand people's objection to a single payer system - eliminating the gross inefficiencies and profit gouging of the insurance industry is the by-product. I'm responding specifically to the person who wrote about single-payer as it relates to consumer choice and wanting to have 6-10 health insurance plans.
Since i moved from Canada 20 years ago, as you've heard repeatedly, it is the one thing that we miss about living in the US. A person in Canada goes to whatever doctor he/she wants (assuming the doctor takes new patients). The hospital you go to is the hospital that your doctor is affiliated with. How difficult is this to understand? Again i ask - what is a standardized plan?
You hear of so many reasons why to eliminate our current system but i'll share one you don't perhaps know. As a business manager, i had to find health insurance for our group - as a collaborative process, they chose a plan with Blue Cross but i could not go through directly to Blue Cross - i had to go through a Broker - that Broker received a kick-back from Blue Cross for us going thru him. And he received a kick-back each and every month. If someone could possibly tell me how it is that our money is spent wisely for such a dumb thing, I'd love to hear it. And you ask why our health coverage is the most expensive in the world.
I am really fed up with hearing people bad mouth a single payer system - i had a perforated appendix (emergency surgery), 3 C-sections, parents have had cancer, heart by-pass and hip replacement (81 years old) and nobody has seen a bill for anything........it's paid for thru your taxes. Imagine never having a deductible, co-pay, prepay, pre-existing condition, be penalized or be denied care or declare bankrupcy because you couldn't pay your health bills..........where health care is a right. Imagine....

[MercutioATC]

27. Definition:

A standardized plan in this case would be one that provides the same set of benefits for everybody.

Under FEHBP, I have the ability to choose between 6-10 different plans that all must meet certain basic requirements. I have the ability to choose from PPV plans (80/20 coverage, but I select my own doctor) or HMO plans (less expensive, but I have to use in-plan doctors and facilities). Each individual plan has different premimums, copays, prescription drug benefits, dental benefits, vision benefits, etc. I have the ability to choose which plan fits my financial and medical needs best.

You argue that our current system should be done away with. I'm not disputing that. However, I'd much rather see something like an expansion of FEHBP than a single health plan for everybody.

[islandspirit]

28. Defining Standardized

The 'simplicity' of single payer is just why it is so cost effective. Having a multiple of plans, variety of coverages, calculating if someone has a co-pay etc is what drives up the cost. Think giving out an aspirin in a hospital in US requires a line of code (for charging). In canada, it is a cost for a day in the hospital - that's it. Administration costs are below 5% in Canada compared to more than 25% for covering healthcare in US. A Canadian doctor has someone spend approximately 2 hours a month downloading their billing for a month compared to several people working full-time in the US.
Everyone has 'ward' coverage which means 4 people to a room. We paid for 'extra' coverage insurance so that we could have a private room in hospital and a few other things. But everone is covered for everything except cosmetic things. So people aren't in emergency rooms for ear aches or sore throats - ER is for emergency - car accidents, heart attacks etc.
I think Americans can't accept that we are all in the same boat - regardless of economic standing. That you might see a doctor right after the doctor treated a homeless person. That's an objection that I hear about having single payer.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. I heard him on Stephanopoulos and he said that he would START

by forcing employers to offer healthcare. He also said he knew as a businessman that that healthcare was a terrible burden and that we had to find ways to make it affordable. He also said that we should be able to expand <Medicare and buy into government pools. I would say that what is being quoted is one sentence out of four - probably to lose him the business vote. I hope he comes out strongly and clarifies his position. It actually sounded close to Kerry's when he said that all Americans should have the same healthcare that he did.

Side note - I am all about Single Payer Universal Health, but I try to keep my mind open to any plan that makes healthcare affordable and accessible for ALL Americans - not just a segment of the population here and there.

[papau]

24. You quote him correctly-and his statements amount to the insurance company

profits protected universal health that Bill Clinton, reacting to insurance company lobbying and promises to get behind the project if the idea was so structured, based his killing of consideration of single payer universal on, forcing Hillary to limit her task force to - per Hillary's "Living History" - the profits protected universal health concept (she forgets to mention that she was the one pushing single payer, writing only that there was a push for concept and that Bill would not allow it). Bill thought that the insurance companies would be too strong a lobby if their profits were threaten - and thought the insurance policy lower cost via purchase into "pools" would work and would fly through Congress.

This latest buy-in variation, because of the piggy backing on an existing Federal program rather than the pretend savings of regional insurance company pools providing coverage through HMO's, may well save a few dollars as it gets "universal" coverage started - and is therefore not a bad idea.

It is just not the best solution.

As an aside - I wish he would be explicit as to how he wants to expand Medicare - as that is the exciting part - if true - in his position - IMHO.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. From what I read today, he sees that as a first step

one that could be implemented immediately.

I'm not sure I agree that that's the best way to start, but I do think that was the idea.

[Cocoa]

20. maybe he wants something that can pass now

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Healthcare is an extremely complicated issue...

That should be debated with many different viewpoints on the table. I look forward to Ned Lamont bringing his views to the discussion as a US Senator.

[papau]

25. many different viewpoints is code for listen to ins. industry - let them

keep their profits.

not that you are using that phrase in that manner - but that is what we said - I was part of the "other side" (in international tax and life insurance - but not health) and have heard that mantra ever since 73 when the ins industry used the phrase to back out of the single payer universal health it had agreed to support that Nixon wanted - Nixon being seen as no longer all that powerful at that point.

[SaveElmer]

29. I actually find this encouraging...

Not the usualy "Hail Mary" approach of single-payer advocates....

To me this shows Lamont may have some inkling of the political impossibilities with that approach.

Shows he may be willing to actually engage in the back and forth compromise that takes place in Congress, and is the only way anything ever gets done.