Is it true that people want to keep their present insurance and what percentage is that?

[Cleita]

For any lurking radio and other media people out there who are bringing up health care reform on their programs, I have a serious question for you to ask any Congressperson or Senator you interview about this matter. To a one, every one of them bring up the mantra that we have to have private insurance in the mix because many people want to keep their present insurance. The only person who was honest about it was Maxine Waters who claimed that most of the corporatists in Congress are speaking with forked tongue. When I do my own informal survey among family, friends, acquaintances and patients where I work, I don't know one who would keep their present insurance if they had a choice for a comprehensive plan like HR 676 (Medicare for all) instead.

Please ask them if there is going to be any effort to make an official study to document just exactly how many people, if given a choice, would keep their present insurance? There seems to be no such study to document this? I'm sure there will be those like the 13% that think George Bush did fine job as President who would say yes, but I would bet my own insurance plan that a majority would rather have a public option like Medicare. Please ask them if any one has documented this claim with actual facts and figures and if they intend to before going off crafting a plan without knowing what plan the people want?

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Well, I'm sure that all of us who have NO insurance are just

pleased as punch with what we have and sure as hell don't want any changes whatsoever.


:sarcasm:


fuckers.






TG

[dkf]

2. I want to keep mine.

My parents want to keep theirs. I want my uncle to keep his. But in Hawaii we already have employer mandated health care insurance, unless you are under 20 hours a week.

Our insurance is still expensive and going up all the time. My boss just eats it and my parents and uncle are ex-government workers so they get theirs paid for too.

[Cleita]

6. If you could get comprehensive coverage, that is no deductibles, no copays

and coverage for dental, eye care and mental health for under $300 a month whether you or your employer pays, would you still like your present insurance?

[stray cat]

15. need link to cost

[Cleita]

17. Hit the first link on my signature line. It leads to John Conyer's website.

He spells it all out for you. Spend some time there studying the information. Actually the figure I gave you is a ball park figure. In reality, such a plan would be financed by an additional payroll tax of probably 5% so your contribution would vary. Another way of estimating cost is to compare what we spend on health care per person, compared to what Canada spends a year. In round figures, we spend $7,000 a year per person on health care and Canada spends half of that. We don't cover 40% of the population and even more are underinsured. Canada covers everyone with few deductibles and co-pays. If you go to the second link on my signature all this is documented.

[dkf]

21. I pay nothing, my employer pays 100% because my firm didn't want to figure out Hawaii laws.

I have a co pay of $12 a visit. No deductibles. No lab costs.

I don't have any RXs but when I do its $30 bucks.

Also I pay $30 bucks for my gas perm contact lenses.

All that is covered under my medical.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. I'd prefer to keep mine as well, thanks.

My parents want to keep theirs as well.

My Dad retired from the UAW, and my Mom retired from the CWA. They worked hard for what they have. No complaints.

[MineralMan]

3. Well Blue Cross just raised my monthy fee to $710, and

that's just for me. So, you bet I'd like to change that. I'm just a year from Medicare age, but I'd switch in a minute today if I could.

[Cleita]

4. San Francisco has started implementing their health insurance for all program

and Gavin Newsome, the mayor says they can do it at a cost of $280 a month for each person. I see no reason why this can't be achieved nationwide. I have Medicare which I pay $96 a month for part B, which pays 80% of the bill but I have to pay $256 a month for private insurance to pay for the other 20%. What's wrong with that picture? I would gladly pay that $256 to Medicare to cover the other 20% because I know it would be administered much more efficiently. Don't even get me started on the $30 to Medicare for prescription drugs, which covers practically nothing. Thank you Republicans for that. :sarcasm:

[dionysus]

5. well, i am single, so my work pays for the whole thing. If i would be convinced the public option

was better i'd switch, but right now i have no complaints with what i have. If i had a wife it would obviously cost me something extra each month...

[Cleita]

7. Does your insurance have no deductibles and co-pays. Does it cover

dental, eye care and mental health? Would you be willing to pay an extra 5% in payroll tax for all of this? Be advised that the payroll tax would always be the same because even if you had a wife and children, they would be covered with no extra deductions from your paycheck. That's what it would be like if HR 676 were passed into law. Would you still prefer your present insurance?

[dionysus]

10. i'd have to compare the two and make a choice, the public one would probably be better.

i have no deductable, a 10 dollar co-pay,and the one script i take is 10 bux a month. vision is covered every other year, no dental unfortunately...

i wouldn't mind paying a payroll tax for public if that meant my employer would be paying me a bit more since they wouldn't have to pay my insurance premium.

[stray cat]

16. Plan on paying $8000 minimum a year - 5% of most peoples pay roll won't cover it

of course the idea is to find someone elso to pay for it I guess if 5% of your payroll won't cover it.

[Cleita]

18. Studies would disagree with you.

Canada can deliver quality health care for all their citizens for under $3,000 a year. Other nations can do it for even less.

[dkf]

22. I'm single and don't pay anything for my health insurance.

I have no deductible, a $12 co pay, coverage for eyes, contacts, glasses, mental health, chiropractors and massage therapists if referred by my doctor. I get a benefit credit which I use for my dental, and supplemental life insurance.

This plan covers everyone in my office, from the execs to the clerks.

Paying 5% of my salary wouldn't make sense for me.

[SharonAnn]

27. So, who pays for your health coverage?

[dkf]

32. My employer pays for me.

Actually, I used to know what they paid, but that was when I paid for part of it. Once they realized Hawaii health insurance laws were confusing (based on salary and hours worked) and that their payroll wasn't set up to do these calculations, they paid all of it!

I think they pay at least $300, but I'm not sure. I do know I have spent a whole lot more in health insurance than I would have ever paid simply going to the doctor.

[HelenWheels]

8. You may change your mind

The entire health insurance coverage will be changing. Your employer may decide to ditch you and don't think that couldn't happen.

[dionysus]

11. i'm not against any public option, i'm just saying with my single status and no chronic conditions,

what i have now is decent for me. give me a public option and i'd probably take it.

[dkf]

23. Why would you take the public option if you are getting a better deal now?

Wouldn't it make sense to keep what you have until you run into some later problem if ever?

Besides, probably what will happen is the uninsurable will go to the public option, making it an expensive pool to be a part of. Then the premiums will go up and up and up. Once the situation stabilizes, my guess is the white collar type private options will be much cheaper than the public option.

[dionysus]

31. i wouldn't. you are right. i'd take public if it was a better deal than what i have now.

i suppose if i had any sort of chronic condition, my current deal wouldn't be so great...

[WeDidIt]

9. I have what would be considered GREAT insurance by most

I want single payer.

[Cleita]

12. Why would you prefer single payer?

Is it because you know you would still have it if you lose your job or if your job drops health insurance altogether, or is it because you know you would never be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or cancelled because you might get an end stage disease they won't cover?

[WeDidIt]

13. All of the above

I have GREAT insurance at the behest of my employer.

My employer could be bought out tomorrow and I could be on the street. Both my wife and I have pre-existing conditions.

Basically, losing my job would be a death sentence today.

[salguine]

14. What present insurance?

[haele]

19. So long as the meds and tests required for people with chronic issues

and mental health issues continue to be covered, I wouldn't mind changing. In fact, when I become eligible for TriCare, I'll change.
My employer provided insurance is good - almost "Cadillac", but my disabled husband has some severe issues both physical and mental - where some of the therapy and medications that work is not currently covered by Medicare (but is covered by TriCare - the DoD/VA system - go figure).

Y'know, "Cadillac care" in Private Health Industry can be considered a rather ironic term - it's still expensive and subject to corporate whims, just like the car industry. Health Care still ends up costing almost a quarter of our yearly income with the premiums, deductables and co-pays. With housing, basic utilities (including one vehicle's fuel) and insurance coming in at just over half our income, that doesn't leave very much for the basics (food, clothes, and house care sundries), not to mention the occasional guilty pleasure - like cheap birthday/holiday gifts or a trip to a museum (at $20 a pop).

If I could go with a public plan and get the same or equivilent care and cheaper co-pays, for just a minor increase in taxes (compared to the $700 month I pay in premiums for three people, the amount they're suggesting is minor) - I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Haele

[Cleita]

20. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet 40% of

the population are uninsured and many more under insured.

[EFerrari]

25. Drug, equipment and admin costs are much, much higher right now

than they need to be.

[krispos42]

26. The insurance company is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Being able to pick which insurance company you have is like being able to pick which mugger will beat you senseless and steal your valuables. It's not much of a "freedom".


It's a false choice, like being able to pick what color your prison cell is.


The best insurance company is the one that's so efficient you forget you have it. I don't want to have to fill out claim forms or mail reimbursement requests or fight with some corporate bureaucrat.

Doctors and surgeons and nurses and pharmaceuticals cure me, not an insurance company.

[SharonAnn]

28. Thank you. That's what I've been saying. People don't necessarily need insurance, they need care!

Health care is what people need. Access to affordable health care!

Health insurance may be one way to get it, but there are other ways.

If you can't define the problem, then how on earth can you define the solution?

[krispos42]

29. Insurance is the means to care

Doubtless some are better than others, but what it is is a service to pay for an essential service.


It's nice to have a couple of different gas stations in town to pick from, but your goad is not to buy gas for the sake of buying gas, it's to enable your car to take you where you need to go! Buying gas is the means, not the end.


Okay, pay-at-the pump, clean bathrooms, and new squeegees are nice, but what we have here is the Repubs and the makers of gas station hardware telling us the primary issue is gas-pump ergonomics, auto-flush toilets, and the quality of the blue fluid in the squeegee bucket!

[SoCalDem]

30. Here's what happens "next"

When the medical care bill(s) pass, and it's deemed "affordable" by all and accessible to" all, watch employers abandon ship, when it comes to offering coverage, or watch them ramp up the employee-share part so people will bail out voluntarily.. Employers would like NOTHING better than to NOT feel compelled to offer it.

There is NO SHORTAGE of workers, so it's not all that necessary to use it as leverage to keep , or find workers.
The flaw in the plan , is that the "new" coverage will probably not be as good as some currently being offered, so the employees will have to face :

a. higher costs for company-assisted coverage
b. less coverage in other outside plans
c. taxation on company-assisted coverage
d. mad scrambling like the "part-D" fiasco a few years back

Unless it's an ALL-IN ,comprehensive plan with NO insurance company/company-paid options, it wil;l create a multitue of problems for middle class people. The rich will be fine..they always are, and the very poor will still get help. It's the rest of us who will have the high-hurdles.