Health Insurance Reform: Where is the Beef
I would just like to ask one question about the upcoming health care reform package. Where is the beef? Where is the savings coming in at for the American people -- the insured?
Yes, we hear about how we will be guaranteed insurance even with pre-existing conditions. Yes, we hear about maybe being able to buy insurance across State lines. Yes, we hear that we'll be able to keep the insurance that we like and choose our own doctors as well (if our employers continue to offer that insurance company package -- which changes nothing, and could happen today even without reform). Yes, we hear that insurance costs should drop (saving insurance companies money) if we get people to be more concerned about their own health (get smokers and eaters to stop abusing their bodies). Yes we hear that millions more citizens will finally get the health care they need. Yes we hear how government will save money and how insurance companies will profit from having new customers.
But, where is the beef?
At what point am 'I' the insured -- going to save money on my health care insurance costs?
I support passing a health care reform bill, don't get me wrong. My problem is, if we're going to save money by doing so -- show us how, in what way. Explain in as few words as possible, how our health insurance costs will actually drop or that we will save money in the long run.
If a citizen is paying on average $4800 per year (just an example) for health insurance today, when will that person finally see a drop in that yearly cost or how much they saved by passing this reform bill? If the bill isn't passed, how much more would they be paying in say, 5 years from now, than if the bill had been passed?
I for one can see the future and how this health care reform will save us all money; but most do not see the bigger picture. Most Americans support something they think is going to save or bring them money and/or --for change.
So, President Obama and Democrats -- where's the beef? Give them specifics. Give them that and you've get yourself a better deal!
If the "reform" keeps only insurance companies in the mix, no one will see their premiums go down. The industry just promised that last week.
If there is true competition, insurance companies will have to compete with the Public Option, which will be less expensive because it will be non-profit.
In the second case, it is only possible if there is a mandate.
October 18, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The mandate is only justifiable if it guarantees care and not merely insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
October 18, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So right! But guaranteed care can only come with shared risk - ie a mandate.
October 18, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is, Obama and Dem's need to INFORM the American people the DETAILS about WHERE the SAVINGS comes from. Right now all we're seeing is Insurance Reform with RULES, very little about how this reform will save US money.
October 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And very little about how care will be delivered.
October 18, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the expectation that those who have insurance now will see a drop in premiums is completely unrealistic. The goal is to get health care for everyone, and those who don't have any coverage now will have to pay for some of it, certainly. The reason they don't now is because it is prohibitively expensive. So if the Public Option makes it affordable, that doesn't mean free; it means affordable.
We have to look at the big picture: Prevent the middle class from getting soaked by the [republican-method of taxation and everything else] and let the uber-wealthy pay their share, and cover those who cannot afford it now with affordable premiums.
Is REDUCING premiums for the insured the goal? I hadn't heard that one; I thought we were trying to keep premiums from doubling in a couple of years and to cover the uninsured.
If insured people need a little bait, then maybe they should realize that -- going to a shopping mall, standing at a corner, passing someone in a library or movie -- with a populace that has only emergency health care even puts THEM at risk. Yes, for TB, H1N1, Regular flu, and even STD's when their little angels go off to high school.
If you need a personal, monthly financial benefit, I'm not the one with the answer.
October 18, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't your comment, "keep premiums from doubling in a couple of years", saving dollars for ALL of us? Well, that's what I mean, they need to talk more about how this reform will KEEP premiums from doubling and how that will save us ALL money.
Enough about the RULES and who can do what, voters need to hear DOLLAR SIGNS or see them....then they will back the program. That's all I'm saying.
Saving Americans money on their ins premiums has always been part of the plan, and by getting everybody covered, they will do that. Right now we (those of us buying health ins now) are paying for those that show at ER without ins.
I just suggest pointing out the specific DOLLARS people might save.
October 18, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink