Senator McCain proposes giving each family $5,000 to buy their own health insurance

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I know it "ain't" free.

I don't want a freebie.

Thick heads don't seem to understand this.

LIFE! Deal with it.

Unhappy? To bad!

Pissed off? Bummer!

Put your hand out? Get it slapped!

Waitin for your LUCKY day? Have a nice wait.

Want all your dreams to come true? Go back to bed.

Want a free ticket? Keep wantin, its a long wait.

Suggest you read the preceding post and repeat. If you re-read it enough times it might actually sink in.

At the same time - you should probably go splash some water on your face.

AWWWWW, you got it? Thick heads I found a thin spot.

Edited April 30, 2008 by CarolsMarc

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I'd say that there's a difference between having one's hand out and taking issue with being fukced up the ringpiece by a greedy industry.

McCain's proposal is actually worse than what exists now. I don't think many Republicans will support it; there are too many gaping holes. Not even a talented speech writer could make it sound workable. Many Americans who support the current health care system (a decreasing number) do so because they have good insurance, usually through an employer. They don't want it messed with. Now McCain is suggesting doing just that. Is he nuts?

If he can explain how his plan would help, for example, a 35-year-old currently uninsurable cancer survivor who earns $32,000 a year as a retail employee, I'd like to hear it. For now, he's just leaning on the old catch phrases that have diminishing relevance to people hurt by this terrible system.

[kaydee457 13]

While I was watching the news I noticed that McCain is proposing allowing the employees to basically pick their health insurance provider rather than sticking with the one the employer chooses. Now that is an excellent idea..

Is it?

Think about that:

Its not doing anything to change the cost of healthcare to make it more affordable or more widely available.

It also doesn't change the way that insurance plans currently work - you're still going to run into the situation of pre-existing conditioning, and if you have a chronic condition you're still likely to face massive premiums to ensure coverage (if indeed you can afford it at all). You're also (still) going to run into the situation of having certain conditions denied coverage from your plan.

That's the whole problem with the current system - it works great when you're healthy... When you're fighting cancer or some other chronic disease you don't want to be fighting tooth and nail with your insurance company.

You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. Since this is very important to you how do you propose that costs and availability be addressed?

What's your solution?

[HAL 9000 96]

I'd say that there's a difference between having one's hand out and taking issue with being fukced up the ringpiece by a greedy industry.

McCain's proposal is actually worse than what exists now. I don't think many Republicans will support it; there are too many gaping holes. Not even a talented speech writer could make it sound workable. Many Americans who support the current health care system (a decreasing number) do so because they have good insurance, usually through an employer. They don't want it messed with. Now McCain is suggesting doing just that. Is he nuts?

If he can explain how his plan would help, for example, a 35-year-old currently uninsurable cancer survivor who earns $32,000 a year as a retail employee, I'd like to hear it. For now, he's just leaning on the old catch phrases that have diminishing relevance to people hurt by this terrible system.

Its just a campaign proposal. Even IF it were to get him anywhere past this November, the price tag on this alone would most likely shuffle him towards Nixon's user-paid system.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I propose medical professionals be our slaves and be forced to work for free.

That'll cut costs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While I was watching the news I noticed that McCain is proposing allowing the employees to basically pick their health insurance provider rather than sticking with the one the employer chooses. Now that is an excellent idea..

Is it?

Think about that:

Its not doing anything to change the cost of healthcare to make it more affordable or more widely available.

It also doesn't change the way that insurance plans currently work - you're still going to run into the situation of pre-existing conditioning, and if you have a chronic condition you're still likely to face massive premiums to ensure coverage (if indeed you can afford it at all). You're also (still) going to run into the situation of having certain conditions denied coverage from your plan.

That's the whole problem with the current system - it works great when you're healthy... When you're fighting cancer or some other chronic disease you don't want to be fighting tooth and nail with your insurance company.

You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. Since this is very important to you how do you propose that costs and availability be addressed?

What's your solution?

Well... in short I don't have one (a specific one anyway). That however doesn't invalidate the criticism.

I realise that wholesale tearing up of the current system is not going to happen any time soon - so presumably some sort of hybrid system is the best that we can hope for. Whatever that ends up being it should at least address the fundamental problems of the current system - those of access and affordability.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Number 6

[kaydee457 13]

While I was watching the news I noticed that McCain is proposing allowing the employees to basically pick their health insurance provider rather than sticking with the one the employer chooses. Now that is an excellent idea..

Is it?

Think about that:

Its not doing anything to change the cost of healthcare to make it more affordable or more widely available.

It also doesn't change the way that insurance plans currently work - you're still going to run into the situation of pre-existing conditioning, and if you have a chronic condition you're still likely to face massive premiums to ensure coverage (if indeed you can afford it at all). You're also (still) going to run into the situation of having certain conditions denied coverage from your plan.

That's the whole problem with the current system - it works great when you're healthy... When you're fighting cancer or some other chronic disease you don't want to be fighting tooth and nail with your insurance company.

You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. Since this is very important to you how do you propose that costs and availability be addressed?

What's your solution?

Well... in short I don't have one (a specific one anyway). That however doesn't invalidate the criticism.

I realise that wholesale tearing up of the current system is not going to happen any time soon - so presumably some sort of hybrid system is the best that we can hope for. Whatever that ends up being it should at least address the fundamental problems of the current system - those of access and affordability.

Well, I have to tell you that I no proponent of this plan if it's going to effectively raise my taxes to subsidize those who have no insurance, however, to answer for you McC's plan does indeed address the issue of making available HC to all, but the affordability issue is TBD....

McC's plan raises taxes, but all three proposals would do that. His plan has one very important plus IMO, and that's it doesn't require a brick and mortar building with a few thousand new federal employees, doesn't dictate medical policy, procedures, or pricing policies to the industry. There's no intervention by the government into the day/day services of the HC provider.

It's based wholly on supply and demand with no direct government intervention. You get your 5k/year, shop around for a plan, and you spend it accordingly. Hopefully, the fact that the market changes radically with the implementation of such a plan that the competition for those dollars will drive the costs down.

I personally don't believe that 5k will cover the cost of a suitable "family" plan, nor will it provide for my current plan which is around 7k/yr paid by my employer.

Having heard the preliminary proposals of all three candidates I have to say that this is the lesser of the three evils.

UHC as touted by the dems would absolutely raise taxes, interfere in services and require bureaucratic management, all bad things IMO.

Edited April 30, 2008 by kaydee457

[kerewin21 2]

In my opinion the only way to fix this situation is to stop expecting health care to make a profit. If we could break even and provide health care for everyone, that would be wonderful. The current solutions proposed continue to feed into the insurance industry; insurance companies are going to continue to attempt to grow and increase their profits any way they can.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McC is providing the illusion of choice with regard to access to healthcare - the amount of money a person has still determines the quality of care they have access to, and indeed whether they can afford it at all.

In short, it won't make much of a difference to individual consumers whether they are priced out of employer mandate plans, or whether they are priced out of the system through individual applications.

The denials through pre-existing conditioning and limitations on coverage for certain conditions still apply and will still impact people.

[kaydee457 13]

McC is providing the illusion of choice with regard to access to healthcare - the amount of money a person has still determines the quality of care they have access to, and indeed whether they can afford it at all.

In short, it won't make much of a difference to individual consumers whether they are priced out of employer mandate plans, or whether they are priced out of the system through individual applications.

The denials through pre-existing conditioning and limitations on coverage for certain conditions still apply and will still impact people.

Actually, they addressed this issue superficially and said they have provisions for such circumstances. Again, no details about any of this to form an opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McC is providing the illusion of choice with regard to access to healthcare - the amount of money a person has still determines the quality of care they have access to, and indeed whether they can afford it at all.

In short, it won't make much of a difference to individual consumers whether they are priced out of employer mandate plans, or whether they are priced out of the system through individual applications.

The denials through pre-existing conditioning and limitations on coverage for certain conditions still apply and will still impact people.

Actually, they addressed this issue superficially and said they have provisions for such circumstances. Again, no details about any of this to form an opinion.

Yes I saw that - very superficially.