BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 09:47 PM

Being self employed purdy much all my life, I'm not sure how the plan works for me. I'm also not too sure what it does for folks who are retire or semi-retired. I can see where the plan is attractive if for everyone else.

Ya' know, I liked Hillary's plan better. Seems that rather than a multitude of of insurance carriers, all competing with one another, their would one governmental unit administering the program. And everyone would be covered. Self employed. Semi retired. Retired. Employed.

Hey, I'd accept Gephart's propoasl over "nuthin" which is more apt to be what America workers are probably gonna get, but I'd rather see it federalized.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 09:37 PM

It's not so much the getting into bed that hits you, its the building of a chain with 100s of % markups built in to it. I understand the R&D on drugs has to be amortized, and all, but I believe their pricing scheme is terribly generous to themselves. When that gets combined with the blanketing of doctors--so that their medical authority is essentially "boughten" by the drug comapnies -- it adds up to something like highwayman manuvers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: kendall
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 08:19 PM

I had my annual check up today, and, in discussing health care costs, I told him that one way to reduce costs is to stop the drug companies from getting into bed with doctors. Sending them on expensive paid trips, and other bribes is a major factor, but, of course, he didn't agree. I came out of the exam room, and there was a drug company rep. doing just what I was complaining about! I didn't even get a pen!

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 05:03 PM

I rather thought the plan cost a LOT of money, and it was nice that he fessed up to the fact instead of pretending like it would be free. If Gephardt weren't running for Prez, it'd be unlikely that his idea would have made the news even if he had proposed it anyway.

I am as leary of extra government administration as you are, Troll. I personally think healthcare is a priority, though, given that we can realistically achieve it. Too bad there are never any movements to get rid of antiquated departments. Be nice if there was a cap on government growth per decade, wouldn't it?

>Where are these small companies going to get the OTHER 40%? By
>increasing the cost of their services and products, that's where.
>And who gets to pay that extra money?

Similar to the arguments about how making 16 hour work days and child labor illegal were going to kill business. One could even argue that by requiring coverage for everyone, it helps level the playing field for businesses when they are competing for quality employees and helps businesses who were already providing coverage compete more fairly in the marketplace. A requirement at the business level doesn't have to be bad for business. Nor did anyone mention anything about employees not picking up a portion of the tab.

For example, as a single woman of child bearing age with no dependants, private health insurance would cost me about $600 a month at the SAME coverage my company plan provides. I pay 38% of my health insurance premium, pre-tax, about $100 per month. My employer pays about $150. Because we are on a group plan, coverage is less than half the price.

I pay $100. None of it is tax deductible.
Employer pays $150, but deducts 30% of it from their taxable income... Let's say they pay 30% income tax (ha!), so in reality their cost is $135, and Uncle Sam picks up $15

Let's say my employer drops coverage. Under the Republican plan, I would fork out $600 a month, all of which is tax deductible. Provided I could afford $600 per month, I wouldn't pax tax on that amount, a savings of about $180. My net cost of healthcare: $420

Under Gephardt's plan, same coverage:
I pay $100 at 38% of the premium
My employer pays $150, but has a tax credit for 60% of it. Their cost: $90, and Uncle Sam picks up $60

Um... sounds like my employer makes out very well under this plan! What will they do with those savings? Give it to investors? Hire more employees? Provide better coverage.

On the surface it looks like the taxpayers would dish out quite a bit more (that's me, remember? In reality, I'm picking up a higher healthcare cost while my employer pays less). But we have to ask ourselves, how much money are the taxpayers going to save in pro-bono but expensive emergency care to uninsured workers who use the emergency room as their only health facility, instead of getting cheap preventative treatment? How many lives will be saved when the emergency rooms aren't clogged up and the ambulance gets redirected to a hospital 20 minutes away?

If mental healthcare is included, how much taxpayer money will be saved by providing counseling to the mentally ill, instead of waiting for the situation to become extreme and they commit a crime (and end up in taxpayer funded prisons) or become institutionalized (in taxpayer funded hospitals)?

What about contagious diseases, spread to everyone, with or without health coverage?

Preventative healthcare SAVES money. The money equation is much more complex than you can get out of a news wire story, and it would depend on the details, of course.

>I do think some kind of universial bacic plan that covers
>catastrophic diseases and basic medical costs should be provided
>though. Such a plan should not pay for cosmetic surgeries like >breast implants, face lifts, and procedures like that though.

I can heartily agree with that, Doug. Question is, how do we get there? Or what can we do to get significantly closer? Because our current situation is pretty horrible when it comes to getting coverage to most of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: DougR
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

It will come as no surprise that I agree with you troll. I think it is just another ploy to gain votes. Were Gephardt NOT running for president I probably would not be as skeptical about it probably, but as you say when a politican promotes a plan and touts the fact it will cost very little money, watch out.

I do think some kind of universial bacic plan that covers catastrophic diseases and basic medical costs should be provided though. Such a plan should not pay for cosmetic surgeries like breast implants, face lifts, and procedures like that though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: Troll
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 04:03 PM

All I can see this plan doing is adding yet another layer of beauracratic administration (which will cost a damn sight more than anyone could imagine) and another burden on the middle-class taxpayer. ANYTIME any politician says that his program will pay for itself, I run like hell to hide as much of my money as I can. I don't believe for a minute that the cost to the taxpayer will be minimal regardless of what kind of smoke and mirrors Mr. Gephart has put forward.
It's a vote-getting scheme and that's all it is.
Where are these small companies going to get the OTHER 40%? By increasing the cost of their services and products, that's where. And who gets to pay that extra money?
Three guesses.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 01:47 PM

Just a quick aside. A lot could be done to reduce the cost of health care in this country. Oddly enough, it seems to be competition that drives the cost up, contrary to the conventional idea to the contrary. Just as one example of many, when a hospital gets an expensive new piece of equipment, the hospital just down the street feels it has to get one too, otherwise they're "behind." Then, they have to pay for the bloody thing—from, of course, the usual revenue sources. Raise their fees. As a result of this kind of competition, there are more MRI machines (at a couple million a crack) in the city of Seattle than there are in all of Canada! What would be so bad about sharing facilities? Like they use to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Apr 03 - 12:45 PM

I'm not what you'd call a Gephardt fan, but I do appreciate that he not only plunked an original idea down on the table, he's calling for other Congressmen to do the same. It's obvious that the old ideas aren't going to get us anywhere.

When it comes to healthcare, we seem to be facing a revision of attitudes in the US.   

Those who want universal healthcare say that everyone deserves a basic level of care. Why? Because it feels right -- it's an emotional and ethical choice. Yet, even most Republicans will say they support heathcare coverage for children and seniors. But in reality, there are no tangible gains from helping old folks live longer and better lives save for the fact that it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to care for them. (Although having the advice and experience of our seniors has many intangible gains; they just don't measure on a cost/benefit analysis.)

Economically speaking, if any age group should be protected, it's the work force.

So as a society, most of us seem to be agreeing about the *concept* of care being "right." I think that there's a plan out there will work.

Subject: RE: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 11:45 PM

I often get queasy trying to suss out broad-range mechanisms like this with their intricate adjustments for so many facets and considerations.

I think it might get bipartisan support if it was understood and well PRd.

It sounds like a better approach than the ones that were flying around during Hillary's era.


A

Subject: BS: Gephardt's Health Care Plan
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Apr 03 - 06:54 PM

Gephardt has taken the high road in his bid for the White House when it comes to healthcare reform... by taking a new twist on the bid to provide universal healthcare via tax incentives.

Past Republican proposals have suggested that individuals be allowed to deduct part of their private health insurance premium costs from their taxes. In theory, employees without health coverage will then be able to afford it. In reality, it does nothing for the lower class groups who are most likely to be ininsured, because they can't afford the premiums anyway (a rebate a year from now doesn't help with the groceries today.) Nor does it do anything for the very poorest, who pay no federal income tax but still have very high payroll taxes.

So Gephardt has proposed that employers be required to provide an unspecified level of coverage. Instead of being able to deduct about 30% of their preiums from their taxes, they will be eligible for a 60% refundable tax CREDIT. It rewards businesses who already provide coverage, but does add costs to businesses who don't.

The bottom line: (from Reuters)
"The plan would cost $214 billion in 2005 and $247 billion by 2007, but Gephardt said it would result in more than $316 billion in increased wages and benefits over the first three years and create more jobs by reducing overhead for employers who already offer health insurance.

He said it also would give states a $172 billion stimulus in the first three years by helping them pay their employee health care costs."

I have mixed feelings about this plan. I still think a single-payer system is the most cost effective way to go, but I'm glad to see a new proposal that attempts to address the issue in a way that might actually provide health care coverage for the 41 million Americans who don't have it, without brutalizing either businesses, insurance companies, or employees. The costs to businesses seem do-able, particularly if there are provisions to assist smaller business into group plans to get them a more reasonable rate. Any many reputable companies would LIKE to provide coverage, but they just need a little more help -- which this plan provides. The cost to the taxpayer is pretty minimal... and the costs have at least been calculated, unlike some other plans.

On the other hand, I feel queasy about futher complicating the tax code, and the worst corporate offenders manipulate similar credits to avoid paying income taxes at all. This might contribute to that problem. Insurance companies stand to gain a LOT if such broad requirements for coverage are enacted without at least a basic level of regulation -- they can price-fix to their heart's content and employers will be trapped.

What do you all think? Is this a plan that might actually work? And is it a plan that might gain bipartisan support?