Good point on Edwards HC plan. Doesn't require people to buy HC or a certain level of HC

[RB TexLa]

coverage. At least what I have heard it doesn't. Those of us who have invested in HSA's and greatly lowered what we pay in premiums by raising our deductible should not have to go back to full health insurance plans.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Does he advocate single payer?

n/t.

[RB TexLa]

2. No, not from what I understood from it

I'm just going by what has been on TV and radio about it.

[hfojvt]

4. TV and radio?

What is this - the dark ages?
http://johnedwards.com/

Not that I have read about it extensively either :blush:

[napi21]

3. I don't know HOW you could REQUIRE anyone to buy HC?

I see your point, and I agree, but thhere's no way I can think of to REQUIRE anyone to buy anything.

I guess you could say, unless you buy into thischeap program, you will NOT be treated...PERIOD! If you go to an emergency room and have NO coverage, then it's just TS. Somehow I don't see that happening though.

[hfojvt]

5. they do it with auto insurance

in most states, but they have a little bit more control over that part of our lives, and still there are people skipping it under the radar.

If it is required, then why not just pay for it with taxes? I guess insurance companies have the power to reward some types of behaviour (avoiding accidents and tickets for driving, avoiding cigarettes and trans-fats for health)

[napi21]

13. Not a comparible argument. You don't HAVE to have a car.

There's only one alternative that I know of to living.

[sandnsea]

10. The only way to guarantee full participation

You're right, I don't know how that requirement would play out if someone had nothing at all.

Still, if we're going to work towards cheaper prevention, then everybody has to get into the system. It won't work any other way.

[RB TexLa]

12. but we don't have to all be in the system at the same level

I am in good health and been able to put the max in my HSA which is growing. There is no need to force me to purchase a more comprehensive and more costly insurance plan. Nor is there a reason for 20 something males to have to purchase the same level of coverage as older males and females.

[antigop]

14. Yes -- we do need to be in the system at the same level -- it's called pooling of risk

And what you have described is the EXACT problem with the Bush plan for HSAs and high-deductibles: the younger, healthier people migrate towards the HSA/high-deductible plan, leaving older and less healthy people in their own risk pool -- which will drive up their rates even higher as more people opt out towards high-deductibles and HSAs.

The ONLY way a national health insurance program can work is if EVERYONE IS IN THE SAME POOL -- so you spread the risk. That's the whole point of insurance.

Leaving older, less healthy people in their own risk pool is inhumane.

<edit to add> That's one of the problems with Medicare today -- it consists of a group of older people who tend to get sick.

And it's why we need to extend Medicare to everyone -- EVERYONE goes into the same pool

[sandnsea]

15. Everyone needs full coverage

Nobody knows when they're going to have an accident or contract cancer or some other disabling disease; or have a child with a chronic disease. That's why social security is called insurance and is for everybody. That's why everybody needs full health insurance. Spread the cost out over the population, that's what insurance is supposed to do. There can be plans with different deductibles and what have you, but everybody needs pretty much the same coverage.

And men ought to have coverage for pregnancies regardless too, it's their child after all.

[RB TexLa]

16. Not with the HSA, I hope they come out with a 20,000 annual deductible plan

in the next few years. I would still be as I am now putting money into the risk pool with the insurance company. I don't see why I should bring less risk to the pool yet pay as much as those bringing more risk to the system.

[sandnsea]

17. You don't know

You could be hit by a car and permanently disabled tomorrow. Nobody gets off this planet pain-free. If you don't have money problems, I guarantee you it'll be injury or illness, addiction, total emptiness, something. You spread the risk for the same reason you spread any other risk - we're individually better off when society at large is better off.

[RB TexLa]

20. I have supplements that are allowed with the HSA plan

to help in the event of catastrophic situations, as well as disability insurance.

[sandnsea]

21. Like I said

Nobody gets off the planet pain-free. You're set up to spend your money on health costs - I guarantee you that's exactly where all your money will go. Sooner or later.

[RB TexLa]

23. That is what the money in the HSA is for and the insurance plan

takes over after the deductible is met. I also never have to buy any medical service I do not wish to buy.

[sandnsea]

24. Well what else would you choose??

If you have Alzheimer's or need in-home medical assistance or long term physical therapy - do you think you're going to choose NOT to buy services that might not be covered in your plan? What else are you going to do with your money?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. You must have a high income if you think that a $20,000 deductible

would be a good deal.

I'm struggling with my $5,000 deductible and monthly premiums, and my income is close to the median for this area.

[RB TexLa]

19. No I don't. But I have put the max in my HSA and will continue to do so

It earns money on top of what I put in.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Right, but that assumes that you can afford to make the contributions

In my case, the debts I've incurred already from medical and dental expenses make it impossible for me to pay into an HSA on top of paying premiums that are actually higher (with all three local insurance companies that write policies for individuals) than those for conventional policies.

Yes, you read correctly. The premiums for the HSA plans offered by each of the three local insurance companies are actually HIGHER than for the conventional plans, and then you're supposed to contribute $200 a month to an extra savings account besides?

I remain convinced that it's a great deal for the affluent, but not for anyone else.

[antigop]

27. Yes, Lydia, HSAs are nothing but a tax shelter for the affluent

You don't have to use the money in the health savings account for your expenses -- you can pay out of pocket and let the health savings account continue to grow.

And as I have explained above, the Bush plan for high-deductible policies with HSAs is inhumane -- it just siphons off the younger, healthier people into their own risk pool, leaving older, less healthy in the more comprehensive plans. As younger, healthier people move out of comprehensive plans, the older, less healthy people (i.e., those that really need insurance ) are left paying higher and higher premiums, because they are in a pool of older, sicker people.

I repeat: the purpose of insurance is a shared risk pool -- the healthy people help subsidize the less healthy. Just because someone is healthy today doesn't mean he/she will be healthy tomorrow.

EVERYONE GOES INTO THE SAME RISK POOL so that everyone is covered and you have coverage if/when you need it.

Health savings accounts with high-deductible policies eliminate this fundamental underpinning of insurance of a shared risk pool.

The fact that health savings accounts and high-deductible policies are a GOP invention should tip people off that they are NOT good for the public.

<edit for correction> HSAs are a GOP invention. The GOP plan is to couple the HSAs with high-deductible polices. If the GOP is pushing this as a "solution", do you think it's good for the general public?

[Mass]

6. In fact it does:

Finally: Individual Responsibility. Once insurance is affordable, everyone will be expected to take responsibility for themselves and their families by obtaining health coverage. Some Americans will obtain coverage from public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP and others will get coverage through their jobs. Other families can buy insurance through the regional Health Markets.
Special exemptions will be available in cases of extreme financial hardship or religious beliefs.
The emphasis on shared responsibility builds on Edwards’ past proposals to insure all children through shared responsibility and contain health care costs. In 2004, his plan would have made children’s health insurance affordable and required parents to purchase coverage for their children. Today, he proposes to expand that approach to make coverage universal.

It offers a lot of options, but eventually, makes insurance mandatory.

[Ignacio Upton]

7. Isn't that the same thing as what Romney signed in Massachusetts?

n/t.

[Mass]

8. The details of the plan are different and most certainly much better,

but it seems that most of the plans that are offered these days by Democrats and Republicans push for a mandatory healthcare insurance. Few, though, go to the end of the logic and offer single payer coverage. To my knowledge, only Kucinich does.

[napi21]

11. I believe Edwards' plan is expansion of medicare for the bare bones

basic ins coverage and multiple levels of expanded coverage through ins. co's. ThatSOUNDS like single payer for at least the basic coverage.

[endarkenment]

9. And bakes in profits for Big HealthCo

And creates multiple tiers of healthcare - really shitty for poor people, moderately shitty for working people, and excellent for the elites.

Until we cut the corporations out of the billions they are making from managing payment transfers and controlling the distribution of medicine we are not going to have decent affordable universal healthcare for everyone.

No more bullshit: single payer universal not for profit health insurance for everyone.

[Porcupine]

26. Yay!!! Mandatory profits for insurance companies.

And I thought Edwards was an asshole because he had a big ass house.

Silly me.

[Selatius]

25. It should be a publicly offered service like Medicare. Single-payer health care seems it.

Forcing people into a poorly regulated market is not a good idea.

You are better off with single-payer health care. With any other system, you need a bureaucracy to police people who don't get health care insurance, a bureaucracy for people who don't qualify for insurance, and a bureaucracy to monitor health insurance companies.

It simply is cheaper to implement single-payer health care.