Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 175 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Neither of the solutions left are single payer
[Read the article: CNN: Obama sweeps Democratic contests]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you really wanted Single Payer, you should have supported Kucinich.
While there are many areas of agreement between them, there are major differences between the programs. The big two are 'mandates' and the role of goverment vs. private insurance companies. They are tied together. Clinton's plan, which is basically Edwards' plan, has a mandate, Obama's plan doesn't. Everyone would be required to buy health insurance, if you cannot afford it, the government would subsidize you so that you could afford a plan. Many people do not like the mandate. They worry that lower income people might have to pay something when they don't have to now, they can go to the emergency room and say they can't pay (however awful this choice is), and even with the subsidy it can get dicey. Nobody said this was easy - look at what has happened in MA, they are still working out the kinks in a state with a medium sized population. But, the biggest objection is that the mandate forces people who are healthy to buy in before they want to buy in and subsidize people who do need the coverage, and provide a 'bonanza' for insurance companies.
This is where I say it the role of government vs. private companies are tied together. Currently, if you are not covered by insurance and and you have a pre-existing condition, in almost every state, if you have been uncovered for more than 31 days, you can kiss getting insurance good-bye. In about 4 states, if you have to buy a policy for indiviudual coverage and you have been not let coverage lapse, insurance companies are obligated to cover you if you can pay the premiums. Otherwise, you are SOL. However, except for MA, where they have mandated that everyone buy HI, in other words, where they have guaranteed that the insurance companies will have pool of people they can actually make money off of, in addition to the sick people they bring in, insurance companies have fled the other 3 states like the plague. I would have very few choices in NJ if I needed to buy an individual plan, but at least I'd have something.
Both plans claim they solve this by requiring all insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people to buy across states to bring down costs. However, without the mandate, with the Federal government ordering insurance companies, many of whom are publically traded, to accept people they would not normally accept, without a balance of healthy people to off-set, I worry about all of this winding up in court. Please bear with me. Publically traded companies have a duty, first and foremost, to their stockholders. Not, it may come as a surprise to you, to the people who buy, or try to buy, and are not allowed to buy, the products they sell. The Enrons of the world don't get in huge trouble for screwing their customers, they get in trouble for screwing their stockholders. What we despise about the insurance companies is them actually doing what they are supposed to do for their stockholders. I worry that in trying, from the Federal level, to force the insurance companies, at a state level, to do something that is against the interests of their stockholders, you could, eventually, wind up with the Supreme Court telling us all that Health Care is not a Constitutional Right.
Clinton's plan not only has a mandate, it has a government plan which would allow many of the people who have pre-existing conditions to use that plan if they wanted to. I believe this makes it less likely to be challenged in court by the insurance companies. I could be totally wrong. I have been told by some people who favor the Obama plan that if the insurance companies fight him, he will tell them they will be forced to go non-profit. I believe that would also wind up before the Supreme Court, if it weren't laughed out of Congress first.
I don't think that either of these plans are perfect. I'm just looking for the one that will allow more people who need it to be covered with less likelihood of it winding up in court. I would be interested to hear from anyone who can re-assure me on the legal issues.
-
I will also be combining two Salon articles
[Read the article: Salon readers refuse to go on spending spree]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rebate will go to pay the credit card debt from paying for my cat's care in the emergency clinic when she died about a year ago - it was that expensive and it has taken that long to pay off. I'll take the money I would have used to pay it and, somehow, put it into savings or an IRA.