Schwarzenegger calls for Universal Health Coverage

[Phasad1913]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I may be beating a bit of a straw man here -- I'll admit that.

Yes, you are and I'm glad that you chose to concede that point. I said BASIC health coverage the people need to just get over common, yet unecessary ills. Those that people should be able to avoid in a modern world.

Originally Posted by Kevin

People no more have a "right" to medicine than they have a "right" to housing. We all die. It's just a question of when. People who have failed to make good choices in their lives may die because they can't afford insurance. Oh well.

At some point in governance, we have to be callous. We have to be willing to accept that governmental intervention is not the solution to all the ills of the world. As I said above, it's all about line drawing. I'm pretty clear where I draw the line on this issue... are you?

People who have failed to make good choices? That is rediculous. The health care crisis affects a huge number of people in this country, including much of the middle class. These people (including myself) have made all kinds of choices, none of which have any bearing on the issue here. Since you put it into the context of "personal choices", though, fine I'll address that. It is the astronomical cost of health insurance that is the problem and the unethical causes of that high cost. People, like me, who CHOSE to get educated, work and follow the strait and narrow STILL are unable to get insured. So, what exactly are the choices YOU are talking about the WE made that render all of us undeserving of health coverage? Are you saying that people who, through any number of means, happened upon wealth and money are more entitled to health coverage than someone who happened to not make as much money or get LUCKY like most of the well-to-do in this country? If that is your point, whether you realized that that was what you were saying, then yeah, you are a part of the problem: the overwhelming number of people who unfortunately influence the policy in this country that does not favor making healthcare more affordable and available to more people.

[Kevin]

I'm a law student by night, a legal assistant by day. My wife's a teacher. I'm not sure what sort of "luck and wealth" as you put it I've benefited from, ya know, having such lofty, high-falootin' titles 'n such.

What you are talking about is "basic" health care coverage. I was not aware that there was any such thing as "basic" health care coverage. Yes, I imagine there are a number of packages out there with things chosen somewhat arbitrarily (but mostly mathematically) to be covered and other things not to be covered. What you would propose is that a "basic" plan be introduced which would essentially take the choice out of the hands of the consumer.

There are any number of plans out there for you, the middle class right this moment. In my state, until my wife, the teacher got access to her plan where we took out a plan with all the bells and whistles, I was on BCBS. It had decent coverage, and if I wanted to expand that coverage, I could. At any rate, I was only spending about $120/month (which is way less than I'm spending now under the state plan, albeit, I have coverage out the wazoo).

Health care is a very complex problem. When you draw those lines as I was discussing above (in deciding what is "Basic coverage") you're essentially telling certain people they're not getting coverage. When you have socialized medicine, in my mind, you're going to create the unrealistic expectations in people that they are entitled to health care no matter what.

I do see that as the next looming "crisis" in healthcare. Microexpansions of the system. It's a huge entitlement program, and no one is entitled to health care. It's a large industry, and I rarely do see or hear of people 'going without.' Do I hear of people being bankrupted, losing their jobs, etc. because they didn't have insurance? Sure, but it's their choice to go without.

[SapphireSphinx9]

as a californian who did NOT vote for schwarzenegger (either time), i'm impressed with his idea and that he's trying to better the whole state, rather than be a puppet for the "rich"

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Phasad1913

It is the astronomical cost of health insurance that is the problem and the unethical causes of that high cost. People, like me, who CHOSE to get educated, work and follow the strait and narrow STILL are unable to get insured.

What?

According to 2 different web sites I just surfed, someone my age in your area (25, in Houston, TX) can get health insurance ($1k deductible/20% coins/$25 office visit) through BCBS for between $130-150/mo.

The insurance 'crisis' for the middle class is not the issue here - if anything, the CA plan will hurt the middle class by forcing them to be covered (and pay out of pocket) if they aren't already . . . unless you know many college-educated, straight-and-narrow people making $25k in Houston (that's the CA threshold for assistance for a single person)?

Basically, the real issue is that hospitals can't turn away the uninsured for emergency care, and the poorest of the poor can't afford basic care. The hope is that pooling risk for the first part (which is paid for out of tax dollars, generally, or passed along to the insured in higher hospital costs) will cause enough of a reduction to pay for the latter - and this burden will be felt MOST by the middle class (the lowest class that won't benefit directly from 'free' insurance).

Essentially, I don't think this policy will have the effects you think it will - eventually most of this gets passed down to consumers.

The "unethical" costs associated with insurance that you mention? What are those? Do you really think those just 'go away' here, or do you think they'll be passed up the chain?

Once that happens, think about the marginal utility of each dollar you earn, and wonder: hmmm, who is this really hurting? Helping?

[AGDee]

I'm curious why you keep quoting rates for a single person who is age 25. There are other family units (families of 3, 4 or more) and age groups who have to pay at least 3 times as much as you're quoting.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm curious why you keep quoting rates for a single person who is age 25. There are other family units (families of 3, 4 or more) and age groups who have to pay at least 3 times as much as you're quoting.

"Keep quoting"? I posted one quote, and tried to make it applicable to that poster.

I realize rates will be different all the way around, it's more expensive with dependents, all of this stuff is pretty obvious - it doesn't change much about the conversation, though, does it? It's borderline tautological . . .

The family rate for gov't assistance in the CA plan? $30k - so I feel like my points earlier still apply, no?

[shinerbock]

Oh yeah! Its a "moral" issue! This is laughable coming from the "you can't legislate morality" crowd.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

"Keep quoting"? I posted one quote, and tried to make it applicable to that poster.

I realize rates will be different all the way around, it's more expensive with dependents, all of this stuff is pretty obvious - it doesn't change much about the conversation, though, does it? It's borderline tautological . . .

The family rate for gov't assistance in the CA plan? $30k - so I feel like my points earlier still apply, no?

Sorry, that was the plural "you" not the singular "you" as Kevin gave a similar quote.

All states have some form of Medicaid already and it sounds like the CA plan is only slightly better than that. It doesn't sound like the right solution to me.

Having worked in health care for 20 years now, I can honestly say that something has to be done in some areas or 1) more and more hospitals in urban areas will have to close and/or 2) the uninsured and underinsured will end up dying from ailments that can be treated. We are, and have been, in a health care crisis for at least a decade and it's only getting worse as fewer employers are offering health care. The hospital system that I work for gives away $100 million in free care annually. The one that is 15 miles north of the city gives away none, because the residents near that hospital have insurance and the hospital sends them to other hospitals. The Detroit area is in a serious health care crisis with 2-3 hospital systems treating all the uninsured and the other hospitals in the state taking on very little of the burden. The gravity of the situation does vary greatly from state to state because of different assistance available (for instance, most major cities do have county hospitals that get funding to treat the uninsured, but no such program exists in Michigan). So, a single mother of two who makes $40,000 a year and doesn't get health care from her employer is pretty much out of luck, as are her children. There is a difficult area where you make too much to qualify for any aid but not enough to pay for all the expenses. It's a tough spot to be in. After paying $300-400 a week in day care, and $1300 a month for a mortgage, there's not much left to pay for health insurance.

Addtionally, there are people with chronic health conditions who cannot get health insurance independently. The health insurance companies don't have to take them on because they are high risk. I had a friend with a thyroid condition who worked as a contractor making good money and who could afford insurance, but couldn't find a company to insure her.

Those are just a couple of scenarios which vary from the 25 year old single person who would only pay $125 a month.

A large part of why health costs are so much is because the hospitals have to make up for the care that they won't get paid for. I could go on for a long time on this subject with a lot of examples, but I've said enough for now.