McCains Healh Plan Would Boost High Risk Pools | Arthritis Information
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
McCain's Free-Market Health Plan
Would Boost Role of High-Risk Pools
By LAURA MECKLER and ANNA WILDE MATHEWS
June 2, 2008; Page A6
John McCain's plan for a health-care system built around consumers shopping for their own insurance comes with a significant downside: for people with a history of illness, it can be impossible to find coverage on their own.
The Republican presidential candidate's main answer is to bolster the role of high-risk pools, which sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, cancer and AIDS.
These pools, typically created by state governments, require significant government subsidies, charge high premiums and sometimes sharply restrict benefits or enrollment. Nationally, fewer than 200,000 people are enrolled in such pools, while 47 million people in the U.S. are without insurance.
"They tend not to work particularly well," said Sara Collins, an assistant vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health-care-research group. "States have really struggled to finance these adequately."
For rest of article see:
Hmmm, this is no longer available for free viewing on the Wall Street Journal, so here's an article on the same subject from the Kaisernetwork.org site:
Election 2008 | Wall Street Journal Examines High-Risk Insurance Pools Proposed by Presumptive Republican Nominee McCain
[Jun 02, 2008]
The Wall Street Journal on Monday examined a proposal from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to "bolster the role of high-risk pools" that market health insurance to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
The proposal would replace a tax break for employees who receive health insurance from employers with a refundable tax credit of as much as ,500 for individuals and ,000 for families for the purchase of private coverage. In addition, the proposal would include a federally funded Guaranteed Access Plan, which would seek to establish high-risk health insurance pools to help individuals who cannot obtain private coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions or no previous group coverage.
"McCain derides government-run health care, but the high-risk pools in existence now require a heavy dose of government intervention," the Journal reports. According to the Journal, fewer than 200,000 U.S. residents currently are enrolled in high-risk health insurance pools, which charge "high premiums and sometimes sharply restrict benefits." In 2006, premiums provided 61% of the funds for high-risk health insurance pools, with most of the remainder of the funds -- about 2 million, or an average of ,800 per enrollee -- provided by state governments.
McCain chief policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that, under the McCain proposal, the federal government might have to provide billion to billion to fund high-risk health insurance pools. However, experts maintain that the estimate is "nowhere near enough, particularly given the large number of people with pre-existing conditions who would need this help if employers send their workers out to the open market," the Journal reports.
"There's no way you can ever charge a premium that's going to pay the cost of this population," Douglas Stratton, chair of the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, said. Sara Collins, a Commonwealth Fund assistant vice president, said of high-risk health insurance pools, "They tend not to work particularly well," adding, "States have really struggled to finance these adequately" (Meckler/Wilde Mathews, Wall Street Journal, 6/2).
YOU TELLING ME THE DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE A HEALTH PLAN THAT WILL TREAT THOSE WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS THE SAME AS THOSE WITHOUT?????
GO EASY ON YOUR MEDS!!!!! LOL
I'm not telling you anything -- the conservative Wall Street Journal is telling you McCain's health proposal's shift to individual plans would boost the role of high risk pools.
"McCain derides government-run health care, but the high-risk pools in existence now require a heavy dose of government intervention," the Journal reports.
McCain chief policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that, under the McCain proposal, the federal government might have to provide billion to billion to fund high-risk health insurance pools. However, experts maintain that the estimate is "nowhere near enough, particularly given the large number of people with pre-existing conditions who would need this help if employers send their workers out to the open market," the Journal reports.
VOTE FOR BARAK OSAMA OBAMA AND WHAT YOU,RE WAILING ABOUT WONT HAPPEN.
what's with the Osama comment?
Probably the same reason Ted Kennedy used it.
[QUOTE=DONN]
VOTE FOR BARAK OSAMA OBAMA AND WHAT YOU,RE WAILING ABOUT WONT HAPPEN.
[/QUOTE]
we don't have to vote Obama to prevent this plan going into effect..
if you remember how this country is run.. the president's power is not what you may think.. he has to have all of Congress vote majority for the implementation of his "plan"
ergo... status quo!!
Why did you need to turn the thread into a personal attack on Obama? I didn't see his name anywhere in the article that was posted for discussion.
This issue is a serious concern for my husband and I, as my husband is self-employed and we are unable to purchase affordable health insurance on our own. Companies such as Anthem or Aetna who sell individual policies simply won't insure us, as we have pre-existing conditions. The option offered is to purchase high risk insurance through the state, but the cost is outrageous. That is a whole segment of the population that is unable to be insured, and yet another reason small business are closing in record numbers. The laws are established to benefit large corporations, not small businesses.
If you're refering to me, Hillhoney, i wasn't attacking Obama... Just explaining that whomever is president doesn't necessarily get his policies and programs administered.. he has to have the backing of the congress .. or things remain the same: status quo
the medical insurance issues have long been an agenda of the president/politicians... I wish there was a good plan to implement, but they each "forget" about some aspect and the relationship to the patients and bill payers..
I am sorry you're having the insurance issue.. IDK how I would manage without insurance.
Are there a group of the same type of companies that can band together and become a "group" in order to get better rates? My Father in law did that when he owned a car dealership..
my best to you.
Babs, no I wasn't referring to you - It was DONN who made the ridiculous Osama/Obama remark.A doctor blogger says today:
http://trusted.md/feed/items/system/2008/06/02/i_may_actually_vote_mccain_talk_me_out_of_it
From what I have gathered reading posts from some of us that live in Canada, the UK and Australia, their state run health offers basic healthcare for all, but the wealthy get better care because they can afford to add to what the government sells them (bought by the general public with tax dollars). So, the wealthy get better care than middle to lower income people. Boney can't get biologics in the UK because he can't afford them. Even with socialized medicine. Even though he kicks in with taxes. How is that better than what we have here? I can't afford 00.00 for Enbrel every month, but I still get it shipped to my doorstep every month. And I didn't have to jump through hoops to get it. As I've said before, I do not believe that our system can't be improved on, but to another system that doesn't work seems crazed.I don't think you can make a blanket statement about all countries which provide healthcare for all citizens. At least not based on reading posts here. Most of our Canadian members have had very positive comments to make about their healthcare. I think some provinces seem to have better access than others, but I am certainly not an expert.
I do feel that we need to have a combination system, where individuals who have private or employer-provided health insurace which they are happy with can continue using a private plan. But there needs to thought given to those who are unable to purchase affordable insurance. I would like the ability to buy into the same healthcare plan that is offered to government employees. I'm willing to pay for insurance, but it can't cost more than my mortgage, and it shouldn't be denied to me because I've have a preexisting illness.
IF.. IMO, a public plan is ever initiated in the States.. the employers will do one of two things..either make you PAY more for their insurance thereby relieving their financial contribution and increasing yours.. OR, stop offering it altogether...
THAT is not good at all.
THE DEMOCRATS WILL CHANGE ALL THAT HILLHONEY. THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING.Yes, some of us from other countries do have some positive comments about their healthcare system. Many of us from the US have positive experiences as well. So, should we only go by the positive experiences? Because that makes us look pretty darn good too. But that's not fair to the folks who are struggling, like Boney. I'm sure he's not the only one in the UK who's having problems.
I agree with Babs that business won't take the hit. It will be passed on to the consumer. Recently the minimum wage went up in Michigan. As predicted, their are now 30% fewer jobs available to young people. Why? Because now that employers are forced to pay the higher wage, they have cut back on how many people they will employ. This is a blow to our already struggling ecomomy because now their are fewer people with disposable cash. That's because the vast majority of minimum wage earners are not the breadwinners in the family, they're kids who are looking for spending money. If this heathcare burden is placed on the backs of businesses they'll just pass it along. This will hurt us even more because we'll have new and higher taxes to pay as well.
[QUOTE=babs10] [QUOTE=DONN]
VOTE FOR BARAK OSAMA OBAMA AND WHAT YOU,RE WAILING ABOUT WONT HAPPEN.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
babs, the president has the power to veto...and this one has more than exercised it. [QUOTE=DONN] THE DEMOCRATS WILL CHANGE ALL THAT HILLHONEY. THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
DONN, please grow some balls this morning and come out as who you really are. I'm tired of you and its only 11 am. [QUOTE=Linncn] From what I have gathered reading posts from some of us that live in Canada, the UK and Australia, their state run health offers basic healthcare for all, but the wealthy get better care because they can afford to add to what the government sells them (bought by the general public with tax dollars). So, the wealthy get better care than middle to lower income people. Boney can't get biologics in the UK because he can't afford them. Even with socialized medicine. Even though he kicks in with taxes. How is that better than what we have here? I can't afford 00.00 for Enbrel every month, but I still get it shipped to my doorstep every month. And I didn't have to jump through hoops to get it. As I've said before, I do not believe that our system can't be improved on, but to another system that doesn't work seems crazed.[/QUOTE]
Linncn. It would be nice to have a one payer system where the providers get paid by the government. I'm very tired of our insurance companies deciding when a patient should go home, or what med a patient can or cannot get. Those decisions need to be left in the hands of our doctors and other health care providers. I don't want a desk making my health care decisions. Biologics should be made available to EVERYONE that needs them. Your RA is as serious as your poor neighbors. I am blessed with excellent health care coverage and I know I'm lucky but I want everyone to feel as lucky. Prevention is the key and so much can be saved by prevention both in lives and in dollars. Also, we all have an obligation to take care of ourselves through diet, smoking cessation, exercise. Obesity, diabetes, and smokers and other substance abusers really eat up our health care dollars. It is up to everyone to fix this. We all play a part in the problem so now we all need to become a part of the solution.Lorster, if you took all of the additional tax money that has been levied against smokers and used that money for health problems associated with smoking instead of those billions of dollars going to the "general funds" there would be no burden to the healthcare system by smokers. Keep in mind that this is the United States of America where we used to be free to be fat. We used to be free to eat what we wanted. We, including our founding fathers were allowed to smoke, eat, drink and be merry but now all we're allowed to do is be Mary, no matter what sex we are. You want to see a drain on our healthcare system, check out the cost of homosexuallity on our healthcare system. Oh yeah, we can't talk about that, it's not politically correct and it can't be taxed, excuse my ignorance.
LEV
I don't believe for one second that the government will not give doctors parameters and mandates, especially regarding length of stay and which meds are covered.
Lori, I agree with you :) on all points except your first one. I don't believe our spend happy government can efficiently run something as huge as every single person's healthcare. And I don't think that they would stay out of the decision making process. I think Joe government emloyee will be deciding who gets what, afterall, it's their money. And I think their would still be a huge gap between the heatlhcare the "haves" get and what the "have nots" get, only now MOST of us will be the "have nots". When government sticks it's nose in, it comes with all kinds of conditions and red tape.[QUOTE=lorster] [QUOTE=babs10] [QUOTE=DONN]
VOTE FOR BARAK OSAMA OBAMA AND WHAT YOU,RE WAILING ABOUT WONT HAPPEN.
[/QUOTE]
we don't have to vote Obama to prevent this plan going into effect..
if you remember how this country is run.. the president's power is not what you may think.. he has to have all of Congress vote majority for the implementation of his "plan"
ergo... status quo!!
[/QUOTE]
babs, the president has the power to veto...and this one has more than exercised it.[/QUOTE]
yes.......... he has the power to veto AND that veto is supposed to be based upon UnConstitutionality.. NOT --whim Bush has signed bills and then stated that he would ignore them when he chose.. which is NOT possible.... and the congress via a 2/3 vote can override a veto....but we are discussing a program that the future president is planning on initiating..
somewhat off topic: just a bit of trivia.. George Bush vetoed 1/4 of what Clinton did.. and about 1/3 of what his father did. why can't Boney's enbrel be shipped and paid for by the company that makes it such as some of yours is? why doesn't he have that option? seriously, I am asking.[QUOTE=babs10]why can't Boney's enbrel be shipped and paid for by the company that makes it such as some of yours is? why doesn't he have that option? seriously, I am asking.[/QUOTE]
I remember something about Boney posting that he wasn't eligible for a biologic cuz he's on prednisone and cuz of his low DAS score. Something like that. By the way, where is Boney this morning? Oh, Boneyyyyyy . . . .
[QUOTE=Linncn]Lori, I agree with you :) on all points except your first one. I don't believe our spend happy government can efficiently run something as huge as every single person's healthcare. And I don't think that they would stay out of the decision making process. I think Joe government emloyee will be deciding who gets what, afterall, it's their money. And I think their would still be a huge gap between the heatlhcare the "haves" get and what the "have nots" get, only now MOST of us will be the "have nots". When government sticks it's nose in, it comes with all kinds of conditions and red tape.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you could use a similar argument regarding insurance companies. I asked my doc if he thought a single payer system would mean less control on his part and he said right now he has to ask insurance companies for referrals and approvals for a lot of stuff.
One's insurance prescription plan determines what drugs we can take and how much we have to pay. Some insurance plans don't cover biologics, and consumers are charged a range of prices, I pay a month, while I know someone who pays and another who pays .
I had to have foot surgery and got a call from someone with my insurance company who asked me a bunch of questions in order to approve my surgery. One of the questions was had I considered different type of shoes. Now my ra doc had recommended it, I'd had ra for yrs by then, so couldn't walk from joint damage, but some clerk had to approve it
I had seen my ra doc for yrs, and then walked in to his ofc for an apt, and was told, oh, your insurance no longer contracts w/doc. I paid out of pocket until open enrollment to switch to another plan.
I had hip surgeries, and it wasn't the doctor who determined when to release me, but the length of stay was determined by insurance company.
I am thankful for the coverage I have, but I don't think its an accurate or fair statement to say government can't improve on our current system. Fed gov health programs provide health insurance for a lot of Americans -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPs, VA, Dept of Defense (military families). And there's state programs, like Oregon, Vermont, Massachusetts, and others that are trying to come up with ways to provide health care to the uninsured and working poor. Government workers, federal, state, local, have private insurance, but it is subsidized by taxpayer money, and insurance companies must negotiate with the gov employer over premiums and coverage.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know its time to address the growing cost of health care and the growing number of uninsured. I would hope we could have a discussion on the subject without spiraling into name calling or polarizing remarks. There's no cure for RA yet, so we are gonna be users of health care for a while, its in our own interest to learn about about possible reform and to let our representatives know we want a health care system that is affordable and fair.
Many times those "clerks" at the insurance company are actually registered nurses. It's not just a /hr telemarketer or a crabby accountant.
[QUOTE=JasmineRain]Many times those "clerks" at the insurance company are actually registered nurses. It's not just a /hr telemarketer or a crabby accountant.[/QUOTE]
I recognize the need for checks and balances, for guidelines, but to argue, which was a previous point, that government involvement in health care as opposed to private insurance, would mean limiting or restricting health care is not totally accurate, as that is currently the case with private health insurance.
As for your point about registered nurses, I found this to be true in dealing in phone conversations with the enbrel manufacturer and with my insurance's advice nurse, but I don't believe I was dealing with a nurse about my foot surgery. The questions did not require medical training or knowledge. And if it were a nurse, given the shortage of nurses these days, then, imo, that was a waste of a professional that could have been used in a better way.
Many of the hotline nurses are former hospital nurses who have chosen to leave that environment, for a variety of reasons (injury, burnout, hours, etc). If the hotline jobs were to go away (or no longer require a nursing degree) they still wouldn't return to the "front lines" of patient care.
Have you ever seen a breakdown of who it is that's uninsured? True, their are many who want to be but aren't, I've mentioned before that my brother was in that situation for a while. Still, their are MILLIONS who are uninsured by choice. Many are people who qualify for medicaid (or is it medicare? I can never remember which is which) who don't bother to do the paper work because they can always go to the ER for free. They make medical costs go up for everyone. Also, young healthy people who opt not to pay for insurance because they would rather have the money for other things. How many people choose a cell phone, an expensive car or exciting vacation instead of buying insurance? The numbers don't tell the whole story. Beyond that, I think it's fundamentally wrong for the government to force the rich to support the poor. I'm all for everyone doing their part, but I think charitable giving is a personal decision. I've worked with several 20-somethings (salaries in the high 50's) who refuse to buy the company insurance (0 every couple weeks) so they can have the hot car, new gaming system and cool apartment.
I also know LOTS of people who choose not to sign up for medicaid... they use the ER for problems, and the free vaccine clinics for the mandatory vaccines.
JR,
I was talking about private insurance employees that call regarding approval of surgery that was recommended by a medical doctor. You mentioned that employee may be a nurse. They did not identify themselves as such, so I do not know, I was not talking about hotline nurses. The point was private insurance companies may limit or restrict medical care.
Lin,
If you feel there are many uninsured that can afford to purchase insurance but choose not to, then you must be supportive of a mandate requiring those people to purchase insurance.
JR,
If people eligible for Medicaid are not signing up and seek care at ER rooms, then there should be a process to sign them up at that point.
Its easy to point out the problems with our health care system or reform ideas, but we need to discuss and figure out possible fixes to improving upon what we have now.
I guess I should have been more clear. All the private insurance precert people I've ever had to deal with have been nurses.
As for the medicaid signup issue... you can't force people to sign up for medicaid. And even if you could, how would that work? The ER nurse fills out your forms for you/with you while she's taking your vitals?
JR,
RE Medicaid signup: this is a smart country, surely they could figure out a way.
I'm not aware of this issue. It would seem to me if one was eligible for Medicaid, why would one choose not to sign up and have to rely on ER care? ERs are dismal places to wait for basic medical care -- that should be incentive enough to sign up.
Maybe its a matter of few medical providers accepting Medicaid patients in the area where these Medicaid-eligible-but-don't-sign-up folks live -- so they would have to go to ER regardless for care, so what's the point in signing up. I don't know.
No, its not realistic or efficient to have an ER medical staffperson, do the paperwork, there should be a separate person for that, and these days, with laptops, software programs, and it systems, it should be doable.
You know, if its so difficult to improve upon our current health care system, maybe we should just totally dump it , and start with something new.
Some want to remain anonymous, for a variety of reasons. Some have a great mistrust of the government. Some are mentally ill/mentally handicapped and don't fully grasp what's going on. Some aren't here legally.
Lots of reasons.
There are various reasons why folks lack health insurance, but I think the main reason is affordability.
But getting back to McCains proposal, can a supporter of his health proposal explain it. His plan would eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income for workers, so workers would then have to pay income tax on what an employer pays toward health insurance. But then that would be offset by a tax credit or deduction. Employers would no longer be able to deduct health insurance as a business expense, so wouldn't that result in employers not offering health benefits? Individuals would then need to shop for insurance on their own, and that is suppose to keep health care affordable? Trying to understand how it would work, if someone can explain it. Thanks in advance.
Maybe he's thinking that his plan would create a more competetive market, thus driving costs down.
It was mentioned in an earlier post, that some uninsured can afford to buy insurance but choose not to, how would McCain's plan address this?
KINDA LIKE THE IRAQ WAR? LORSTER
TAKE YOUR PANTS SUIT OFF AND LET IT BREATH!!!!!!! LMAO
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com