Nathan Newman wrote:
> Which is far better than not providing health insurance at all for most of the
> poor. Hell, I'd love to have single-payer health care but Medicaid is not even
> that-- it's benefits are often weak and many doctors will not even take it. For
> most people with Medicaid, decent private insurance would be a great
> improvement. For those without any health care, any insurance would be better
> than none.
There are things that Medicaid will cover that private plans do not. There is case law which over the years has been created to protect MediCal benefits and processes in place to challenge any government denials of services or cuts in services. There are no such protections in private health care. People with disabilities will be particularly hurt if Medicaid is ended because private insurance does not provide many services that they now get through Medicaid -- personal assistance services to remain in their homes, for one thing. No private insurer offers that. Try getting some kinds of durable medical equipment and items that people need everyday from an HMO.
Seconldy private insurers cherry pick - they don't want people with chronic illnesses. That is why we have MediCAl to begin with. Private insurers squeeze these people onto the public system by cherry picking or pricing coverage so high no one can afford it. There are pre-existing condition limitations that can be in effect for 6 months to one year depending on what state one lives in - that can kill someone right out. There are many other detrimental differences.
>
>
> What kind of weird argument is it that makes people oppose a plan that would
> subsidize universal coverage to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year
> in additional health care funding.
Bradley's plan is not "universal". Who are the 5% that Bradley's plan leaves out? Not worthy citizens or what?
> It is not the ideal plan but it would do one
> dramatic thing-- the poor would have the same health care program as middle
> class folks, thereby eliminating the two-tier medical care system in our
> society.
Gore has pointed out that Bradley's vouchers would be about $150 per person -- too little to buy into anything but the lowest quality HMO out there or plans with high deductables and limited benefits. The rich would continue to have Cadillac care while those with a Bradley voucher would be fighting to just get standard care.
>
> If we could achieve that, then we could fight for all the issues of medical
> regulation and even nationalization without all the racial and class divides
> that have continued to prevent it.
>
> The fact is that fighting for both universal coverage and the elimination of
> private insurance at the same time is extremely hard. Medicaid does not
> prevent the private insurance system from functioning -- there are ways in which
> it helps it thrive by taking high-risk individuals out of the pool of the
> insured. So eliminating it and integrating the poor into a universal system
> might not only increase medical coverage for folks, but also force an overall
> accounting of costs in the system that might help push for single-payer as the
> next step.
>
Well you are toying with many people's lives by thinking this can happen. When the government tried to regulate Medicare HMOs, they just dropped the Medicare populations because they said they were too costly. The private system will continue to operate on making profits off people's health care -- it will never be equitable, it will ALWAYS try to rid itself of costlier patients. The HMOS have been doing this by denying care. They would like to start euthanasia -- yes it was an HMO executive who was behind the assisted suicide law in Oregon.
>
> Folks complain on the list about spending caps and failures to expand social
> service spending, yet here we have a proposed massive increase in health care
> spending aimed primarily at the poor and lower-income working folks, and people
> want to oppose it!?
Its an illusion dude.
-- Marta