Oct
30
Health Care Coverage For All
By
Description: President Obama has set universal health care coverage for all Americans as a central priority for his administration. And, as Chip Reid reports, this could be an expensive goal to reach.
- Useful Resources
- Everyone's Money Book on Stocks, Bonds & Mutual Funds
Product Description"My mission is to teach people how to make savvy financial decisions and give them all the resources they need to put my...
23 Comments
October 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
FOX-CBS-NBC-The facts are simple….We will be a better Country..once Health Care Reform passes. We all pick up the tab for people who don’t pay taxes and don’t have medical insurance… Let everyone pay into the system so that everyone has coverage. No Brainer and for those who are nick picking at every line in the proposal… leave the country…you don’t belong here anyway.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Imagine this ….320+million americans. Over 250+ million americans in the work force. Everyone contributes $ 2 dollars to a tax from their pay check that goes to this new health care system. Estimate that at a year end surplus of 24 billion a year in universal health care for all. If they can take money out for social security benefits for the sick and elderly then why won’t they do this for all. So many families have lost everything because of medical bills. That isnt right….
October 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Our complex system (and thus a complex problem) requires more than a grunt that most sites allow–and more than a couple sentences of explanation. I’ve replied to you; but space limits had me go “forward” in the column. Please just search for my name and then, rather than reading from top to bottom, read according to the order of entries made–from bottom to top. (While others may be familiar with posting order, not everyone is). It’s truly vital we figure this out–with sense. This is a start.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Finally, it’s also why Obama offered a “government option,” as yet another choice, while NOT wanting the “single payer” concept. The gov’t would NOT earn any money at this; it would merely pool ALL the funds of EVERY citizen into ONE fund–exactly what Soc. Sec. has proven it does so well for generations. (It’s SO successful, the gov’t borrows from it regularly to balance the budget.) But insurance co.’s & their investors do NOT want to lose out. Thus, they’re BOTH fighting change so hard. See?
October 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The INSURED must think like insurERS if we’re to arrive at any kind of “negotiation” here. As long as insurance companies are included, this incredibly complex bargaining process will be a part of health coverage. Insurance companies make up an entire industry that is ALSO an investment fund. Investors don’t risk their money to LOSE it–they do so to come out ahead. And THIS is why the “single-payer” folks say it’s vital to REMOVE insurance companies from this health care process.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Insurers can invest a fund’s pool IF they’ve a handle on how long they’ll have how much–will it always be paying out high claims? (Such as homes in fire-prone areas of Calif.) Same with health insurers–HIV/AIDS comes with a high cost over a long period, as do cancers, heart disease–for surgeries, treatments, visits, drugs. If you’ll pay for these high-cost treatments, premiums MUST cost more; the invested pool of funds must YIELD more: you CAN’T have switches with each insured’s new “need.”
October 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Nearing the end here: The data tells them their “chances” of house fires, thefts, floods, etc., so they know how long they’ll have hold of that sum of money–which they then invest short-term, long-term, wherever to earn the most they can WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. They know they’re going to pay out something; but RARELY everything, not all at once. (For example, insurers never considered a Katrina–and look what what happened.) They thus try to LOWER the chances of paying out more than they’ve got.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Stay with me here… Retirement funds invest in insurance companies ALL THE TIME. You don’t invest in what’d give a poor yield, but in what promises a good one. Just as insurers (and banks) compute “risks,” so do investors. Even a loan shark’ll loan any bum some money–at a cost, charging more for a poor risk, less for a good one. Banks do the same; thus, higher interest rates if your credit history’s grim. Insurance MUST use the same concept: What are the “chances”? Thus, they compile data.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
My point is: The insurance companies aren’t just there to TAKE and/or PAY OUT money, receiving nothing for their efforts. They USE that vast sum to INVEST, which then EARNS MORE money–that’s theirs. As the insured, we tend to see only the perspective of premiums, and what we might get back in return. Unless our income level’s high enough to make investments, we don’t see the INVESTING aspect of the insurance “industry.” THIS is what is key. Those funds otherwise would lay idle, earning zip.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Obviously, every policy holder didn’t have a daily house fire; nor did most in the fund–leaving all that money sitting there, idle. The insurance fund’s administrators, thus, invested that “pool” of money into something that produced some interest, to “earn” more money. True, this is using “other people’s money,” but the added value comes only via the insurance administrator’s efforts–not the insured’s efforts (only their money). The insurers thus earned something for their efforts.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The ONLY way they can pay the costs is by “pooling” resources. Thus, the first insurance policies WERE (in actuality) for house fires. The risks were common, as every house had to use fire to heat and cook. They “pooled” their funds into one; whenever those who’d done so had a fire, they drew from that fund for repairs. Some homes may’ve had faulty chimneys, and had fires frequently, while homes with better designed chimneys didn’t, making fewer claims. The concept’s the same.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
When engaging in any argument, it always helps to take the “opponent’s” position, and to think from their perspective. I don’t know the insurance business, but I can grasp the basic concept of how they do and must operate. The very basis of it is “risk”–always. It’s a legitimized form of gambling. They ask “What are the chances of a house fire?” and they get the data (# of house fires per year in “X” region); crunch costs, divide among policy holders, and that’s what they charge per policy.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
It’d work just as ALL plans do. ALL are created by insurers, not the insured. You may choose Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, but never this item from Plan A, that from B, another from C., in an “a la carte” choice. “Plans” are “programs,” devised by insurers, not the insured. You may choose from among different plans, but can’t “mix” plans’ options. It’’s like ordering a “combo pizza” and eating only the onions, but not the peppers; you can’t order “half peppers” “half onions”–it’s a “combo” pizza.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
But my point is that I get whatever insurance my company chooses. If my company decides to change my plan, I have no choice (because I don’t want to go look for one on my own – that would be worse!).
October 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Good Point!
October 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
If you have a plan currently that you like, then you needn’t leave it for something else–you can keep it. If we enact a plan akin to that which covers federal employees (which includes government workers such as the Congress and administration) you’d get to choose among the many options they have. IF we enact one more choice (the “public option”), you may also choose from that, as well–good if you can’t afford private plans, or have been turned down by insurers for a pre-existing condition.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Something I don’t understand. Obama says we can keep the health care that we have if we like it, but we don’t have a choice as employees on which health care we have now. The company chooses. What if the company chooses a plan we don’t like? We are off finding our own then, right? Isn’t that what people are doing now?
Anyone wanna comment and help me out here?
thanks!
October 30th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
The USA health care system is a disaster.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
You hit the nail on the head – our national debt will sink us sooner or later. Welcome to china!
Why doesnt the govt offer catastrophic care instead of mandates??
For example: Govt covers expenses over 5X your annual salary. This limits insurers liability while immediately reducing premiums to small business & people.
For those who can’t afford insurance – isn’t that what medicaid is for?
We certainly can’t “copy” other socialized programs – that equals rationed, substandard care!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
We will never get out of debt, there’s not any natural resources left to make that much money with…….:(
October 30th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
30% of 2.5 trillion spent on health insurance will not go to care. Cut out the middle man. Our senators have no problem tossing the auto workers under the bus, why not the insurance companies. Could it be the money they get from lobbyists?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:14 am
$ 6 thousand dollars a year per employee. Wow!
October 31st, 2009 at 12:24 am
To the WORLD
This morning I sat down in five hotels writing about GOD,LOVE & WORLD PEACE in 11 languages & handing my works over to 10 glorious individuals representing 7 nations.
4 of them were in the investment sector & adore my partners Albert Arnold Gore Jr (Al Gore) & Sir Richard Branson. Google those names with World Peace.
I shall continue for PEACE is what most of the world desires.
I enjoy Manhattan for its diversity & being wired to the internet & google.
Jante Degaul