Health Care Coverage For All

President Obama has set universal health care coverage for all Americans as a central priority for his administration. And, as Chip Reid reports, this could be an expensive goal to reach.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Evening
• Insurance
• Health
• Medical
• Medicine

[rawraw41]

FOX-CBS-NBC-The facts are simple....We will be a better Country..once Health Care Reform passes. We all pick up the tab for people who don't pay taxes and don't have medical insurance... Let everyone pay into the system so that everyone has coverage. No Brainer and for those who are nick picking at every line in the proposal... leave the country...you don't belong here anyway.

[RickRomo]

Imagine this ....320+million americans. Over 250+ million americans in the work force. Everyone contributes $ 2 dollars to a tax from their pay check that goes to this new health care system. Estimate that at a year end surplus of 24 billion a year in universal health care for all. If they can take money out for social security benefits for the sick and elderly then why won't they do this for all. So many families have lost everything because of medical bills. That isnt right....

[THEValleyGurl16]

E:\D'Ro\The Horror\Health care horrors presentation_files\frame.htm

copy link and paste

[seesaw148]

@rawraw41 It good to see positive change over the health care system in the US. In Australia we have universal health care called medicare and the system works fine. US citizens have to get over this fear of having to pay 'for somebody else'

[Zootallors]

Our complex system (and thus a complex problem) requires more than a grunt that most sites allow--and more than a couple sentences of explanation. I've replied to you; but space limits had me go "forward" in the column. Please just search for my name and then, rather than reading from top to bottom, read according to the order of entries made--from bottom to top. (While others may be familiar with posting order, not everyone is). It's truly vital we figure this out--with sense. This is a start.

[Zootallors]

Finally, it's also why Obama offered a "government option," as yet another choice, while NOT wanting the "single payer" concept. The gov't would NOT earn any money at this; it would merely pool ALL the funds of EVERY citizen into ONE fund--exactly what Soc. Sec. has proven it does so well for generations. (It's SO successful, the gov't borrows from it regularly to balance the budget.) But insurance co.'s & their investors do NOT want to lose out. Thus, they're BOTH fighting change so hard. See?

[Zootallors]

The INSURED must think like insurERS if we're to arrive at any kind of "negotiation" here. As long as insurance companies are included, this incredibly complex bargaining process will be a part of health coverage. Insurance companies make up an entire industry that is ALSO an investment fund. Investors don't risk their money to LOSE it--they do so to come out ahead. And THIS is why the "single-payer" folks say it's vital to REMOVE insurance companies from this health care process.

[Zootallors]

Insurers can invest a fund's pool IF they've a handle on how long they'll have how much--will it always be paying out high claims? (Such as homes in fire-prone areas of Calif.) Same with health insurers--HIV/AIDS comes with a high cost over a long period, as do cancers, heart disease--for surgeries, treatments, visits, drugs. If you'll pay for these high-cost treatments, premiums MUST cost more; the invested pool of funds must YIELD more: you CAN'T have switches with each insured's new "need."

[Zootallors]

Nearing the end here: The data tells them their "chances" of house fires, thefts, floods, etc., so they know how long they'll have hold of that sum of money--which they then invest short-term, long-term, wherever to earn the most they can WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. They know they're going to pay out something; but RARELY everything, not all at once. (For example, insurers never considered a Katrina--and look what what happened.) They thus try to LOWER the chances of paying out more than they've got.

[Zootallors]

Stay with me here... Retirement funds invest in insurance companies ALL THE TIME. You don't invest in what'd give a poor yield, but in what promises a good one. Just as insurers (and banks) compute "risks," so do investors. Even a loan shark'll loan any bum some money--at a cost, charging more for a poor risk, less for a good one. Banks do the same; thus, higher interest rates if your credit history's grim. Insurance MUST use the same concept: What are the "chances"? Thus, they compile data.