Comments | meteoricpath: Politics of Healthcare

meteoricpath

Politics of Healthcare

Feb 23, 2008 18:41

Any thoughts?

I tend to think that a mandate will be necessary, however I have a problem with not knowing how the costs to the consumer will be calculated.

us politics

Comments 6

1mom_carol February 23 2008, 20:40:03 UTC

If there is a mandate, it needs to be calculated on a needs basis...a sliding scale. I like the way Mass. is doing it, and would be interested in seeing the results over a time period of say 5 years. The first year is bound to be a little rough as the kinks get ironed out.
Talk to you tomorrow!

from the front lines.... tommytesto February 23 2008, 23:51:21 UTC

I live in MA. It is not well done here. The plans are very very expensive, and you are fined, and then potentially jailed, if you cannot get health insurance. I have clients who are really freaked out, because if they don't submit a certificate of health care coverage with their state taxes, they are in big trouble. (And those are the legal citizens.)

Also - the system just started in January, and rates are already scheduled to go up 13%. It is literally unaffordable - not just an inconvenience as it is for the 23 yr old in the NYT story.

Finally, even though everyone is obligated to have health care coverage, certain situations do not need to be covered by any of the common care providers. The one that quickly comes to mind is trans related health care.

Re: from the front lines.... 1mom_carol February 24 2008, 00:10:13 UTC

HMMM...very disturbing. As usual an article doesn't paint the full picture. I still believe what I said originally tho', but it cannot have this punative effect! I was thinking....maybe a sort of expansion on Medicare, or along the line of CHIP (you know, the Children's Health Insurance Program that Bush vetoed the increase on?) would be a good model. It seems to me that a government mandate should carry a government subsidy.
Thanks for your very illuminating comment. There is no easy answer for this, for sure. Something must be done with the insurance companies soaring rates and so many people without insurance. the situation now is a viscious cycle as people without insurance use the emergency rooms for their primary care, which raises the costs for everyone-with or without insurance.

Re: from the front lines.... tommytesto February 24 2008, 00:31:08 UTC

Very true - and I am sorry if my comments came off as harsh. This version of "universal health care" is the main outcome of Mitt Romney's tenure...and to some extent, it shows. A minimum of preventative care is covered, which hopefully will encourage people to at least get their money's worth.

hibiscus3 February 23 2008, 21:14:00 UTC

Which article are you linking to?....all it's taking me to is an ad. i really need to get up to speed on this issue though (if it's universal healthcare and healthcare reform you're noting) especially with respect to obama v. clinton's plan.

meteoricpath February 23 2008, 21:31:02 UTC

try this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?ei=5124&en=ba99e7eca4f9b480&ex=1361509200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

its the ny times article on February 23
"2 Plans and Many Questions on the Uninsured"
By KEVIN SACK