Why I want a public option
August 14, 2009 at 11:25 am by Andisheh Nouraee in News
Why do I want the option to purchase health insurance through a not-for-profit government program similar to Medicare?
Two reasons, one general and one specific.
1. Because I believe quality medical care is a human right.
2. Because private insurance failed me.
From 1997 to 2007, I was self-employed. I paid for health insurance out of pocket.
During this period, my monthly premiums increased 437 percent, from $69 per month to approximately $300 per month.
I have no chronic health problems other than seasonal allergies. I wear glasses and contact lenses. I’ve had three cavities, which doesn’t matter because none of my plans included dental or eye care. I don’t have children.
To keep my premiums lower, I kept switching to higher deductible plans, and regularly narrowing my physician options by going from PPO to HMO.
A 437 percent price increase — while the quality of my coverage was dropping.
I had three insurers during that 10-year period. I moved around trying to find the best price.
I stopped jumping around, though, after an insurer I was attempting to jump to turned me down because of a preexisting condition.
What was my condition?
A stomach ache.
I had painful stomach aches for a couple weeks — in 1999 I think it was. I’m fine now. It turned out to be nothing more than stress-induced heartburn. It was corrected by exercising to relieve stress, getting a relaxing hobby (photography), and eating bland foods for several days.
But I didn’t know that at first.
So I went to my primary care physician, who gave me an abdominal X-ray.
Alas, my preexisting condition — a stomach ache I made the mistake of telling a doctor about.
Since 2007, I’ve been insured through an employer’s group plan. I’m lucky. For the rest of my life, I’ll probably be able to get on a group plan because my wife and I are more employable than average.
But I can no longer afford to purchase private insurance on my own.
There is a fundamental problem with private, for-profit health insurance. It’s a problem that cannot be corrected.
Private insurers lose money every time they help their customers. Hence the avoidance of the guy with the stomach ache.
If a car hits me today, United Healthcare (my current insurer) has a sudden, urgent financial incentive to drop me. My medical needs are their financial liabilities.
This is not true of doctors, nurses, technicians, drug companies, and hospitals.
They typically make money by helping you. And they deserve it.
There are huge inefficiencies in their systems, but generally the more and better work they do, the more money they make. Generally.
Some people like to bash pharmaceutical firms for their excesses. That’s understandable.
Drugs keep people alive, though.
Making a fat profit for keeping people alive and/or well is capitalism I can believe in with few reservations.
But that’s not how private insurers operate.
Every dollar they spend on helping sick people is an expense.
I don’t want to pay money to a company that views my life as liability.
I want a public option.
Critics of a public health plan open to all Americans say they don’t want government bureaucrats deciding which treatments and drugs are covered.
I’m totally fine with government bureaucrats making those decisions.
Why?
Because at the moment, for-profit insurance company bureaucrats are the people making those same decisions.
People who lose money when they care for me are the ones deciding what care I get.
The primary duty of insurance company bureaucrats is to protect the fiscal health of their employer.
Again. My health is their liability.
Given a choice between faceless bureaucrats, I’m choosing the ones who are sworn to work for the public good, not the ones with an eye on Wall Street quarterly reports.
I want a public option. I believe it will be more affordable, humane and dignified than the current U.S. system.
And more effective.
People in advanced countries with universal healthcare live longer.
(Illustration courtesy Wikimedia Commons.)
.png){kind=link}
August 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Throw The Healthcare Obstructionist Out!
More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 76% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (85% of democrats, 71% of independents, and 60% republicans). Basically everyone.
We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. And the most costly. Costing over twice as much as every other county. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.
I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. A trillion dollar taxpayer funded private health insurance bailout is all you really get, without a robust government-run public option available on day one. Co-OP’s ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION. They are a fraud being pushed by the GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry that is KILLING YOU!
YOU CANT HAVE AN INSURANCE MANDATE WITHOUT A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION. MANDATING PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE AS YOUR ONLY CHOICE WOULD BE A DISASTER. AND UNETHICAL, CORRUPT, AND MORALLY REPUGNANT. AND PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.
These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!
Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it’s President Obama’s fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.
But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.
But you don’t have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.
Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will make you feel better too.
There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.
I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!
You have been AMAZING!!! people. Don’t loose heart. You knew it wasn’t going to be easy saving the World. :-)
God Bless You
jacksmith — Working Class
I REST MY CASE (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.
* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah
August 14th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I don’t know who added the art, but thank you.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Private insurers have huge overhead costs when compared to Medicare because they spend a great deal of effort trying to weed out applicants who seem like they might get sick at some point. Hence your rejection for your “pre-existing condition” (ie, you were born with a stomach).
And they spend even more energy trying to deny treatment to their premium-paying customers, often citing excuses such as incomplete paperwork or failure to reveal the dreaded “pre-existing condition.”
If, say, a contractor you’d already paid a deposit to renovate your kitchen said he wasn’t obligated to do the work because you’d missed a line on a form, we’d call that fraud. When the insurance industry does it, we call it business as usual.
August 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Yes.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Great post. I just love the people who say they don’t want a bureaucrat between them and their doctors. I always want to say to those people, “Oh, you must be uninsured then!” A bureaucrat will always between you and your doctor. It’s a matter of which bureaucrat you trust. In many instances, it’s a for-profit one. However, in many others, such as healthcare, it’s a government one.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I had virtually the same experience when I was freelancing between 2004 and 2008. Started off with premiums about $100 with a $2,000 deductible. The policy excluded coverage for any kind of cancer since I had a basal cell removed from my face in 2003. By the time I returned to employer-based coverage last year my premium was $300 a month with a $10,000 deductible. The opposition in this debate seems to come from some people who would seem to have an interest in supporting healthcare reform. I’m barely speaking to a longtime friend who is so opposed to government-run healthcare he can’t talk about the topic without screaming GOP talking points. He has been unemployed for more than a year and struggling to take care of his family. When his wife had a mild stroke several months ago she was treated at a public hospital at no cost because they have no insurance.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Andy, thanks for sharing this. As you know, I uprooted my life because I could not buy private health insurance at any price as a freelance writer in Atlanta because of a “pre-existing” medical condition. There simply is no free market for people who have been sick and are not employed by big companies. In my hunt for health insurance, I was fortunate to be able to start a new career far from home. Health care is yet another issue about which the Republicans spew lies that the whores in the media accord the same value as truth. The media reportage of lies as truth — the great propaganda triumph of Newt and the Republicans — is the curse of our time.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
So would you leave your cushy United Health Care insurance for the public option? Doubtful. And don’t you realize that eventually the public “option” is not going to be an option, but a mandate? You can deny this fact all you want, but it’s only a matter of time.
You’re not “lucky” to have the coverage you have – it’s a well-deserved form of compensation for being a PRODUCTIVE citizen and not lying around on your ass expecting a handout.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Why would it be the mandate? That is what i do not understand from the opposition.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Atlanta336,
And he wasn’t “productive” while he was self-employed for 10 years? You sound conservative…don’t you support entreprenuers (sp?) who are trying to make it on their own? B/c it seems folks like Andy here were working their asses off but couldn’t get decent health care.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Join the miltary
August 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Can we please have some crazy ass shit from the teabaggers? Please? I need my daily dose of screaming about socialism!
August 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I’m self-employed and work very hard to support myself without any handouts. I’ve not visited a doctor or gotten a prescription since I left my corporate career as an accountant over a year and a half ago and yet I pay $220 per month for health insurance with NO pre-existing conditions! If I can get it cheaper from the gov’t, I can continue to not need it but put the extra money directly back into my business and our economy.
Atlanta336, yes I would absolutely leave my “great” private insurance for the public option. I hate the US for-profit insurance industry. Their goal is NOT to pay you even though you’ve already paid for coverage through premiums.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
If you think that government bureaucrats won’t have cost limits then you are crazy. They will have the same, sorry, smaller budgets for each persons medical expenses. They will have to cut and limit everyone’s medical expenses. Why do you think that 850,000 in Canada and 1.6 million in Great Britain are currently on waiting list to visit a hospital for surgery? They are waiting on their turn for surgery because the current healthcare budgets can’t handle all of those people getting surgery at the same time.
In any system that is not based upon supply and demand, there will be rationing. The author of this article had his insurance premiums rise because he was at a disadvantage in the market under an individual plan. Employer plans receive tax credits, individuals don’t. Thus, the number of employer plans rose during that ten year period while individual plans went down. Supply and demand. Less demand for individual coverage equals higher cost. Republicans and Democrats a like are to blame. They both did not look out for individuals, instead deciding to climb into bed with big corporations. If individuals could receive the same tax credits that employers do, you will see a more even playing field and thus demand for individual plans will rise, and costs will lower.
Less government intervention will only benefit the individual because the government is so large that individuals don’t matter and the only ones being looked after in Washington on both sides of the aisle are big corporations. They are the only ones giving money to both sides because they are the only ones capable of giving that much money. The point is, government should stick to what it does best, the mail.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
@ Edgewoof Adam RE: Mandatory public option – it would become a quasi-mandatory option very quickly because the vast majority, if not all, private insurers would be driven out of business by a competitor with an endless tolerance for losses. Perhaps this is why the big insurers have been part of writing the bills?
Obama, Sen Frank and several others have already stated on numerous occassions that the public option is a stepping stone to single payer. Once that destination is reached, the public option will be the only option, therefore a mandate.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
American Indians receive universal health care from the Federal government. What is their health care and life expectancy like?
In fact, they receive more extensive and more purely Federal services than any other segment of the US.
Anybody want to move to the res?
I’m just saying.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Andi –
A great article on how market solutions can effectively insure those with pre-existing conditions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html
I have a feeling that this won’t persuade you, however. My gut tells me you prefer the public option for other reasons. Sorry to hear about your situation though.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
It would be cool if Republicans in office were focused on making the case presented in that article rather than scare tactics and “death panels”. An actual grown-up debate or contest of ideas would be much more refreshing.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I’ll give it read, Adam, thank you.
By the way, does anyone else get a box ad on this page for health insurance companies?
August 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
John, stay off the British system because you will lose that argument with anyone whose brain is working. The Brits pay one-third what we do and every darn one of them has full coverage, entirely worry free. Sure, grandma has to wait for her hip replacement – at the price she pays, so she should and that’s a lot better than Doug Monroe having to leave town to find any coverage at all and a lot better than folks going bankrupt with massive hospital bills, none of which indignities the Brits suffer. OK, yes, the Brit docs don’t prescribe CAT scans when you don’t need the extra rays, because they are not making a packet on their limited partnerships in the CAT machine.
August 15th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Good News !
A staff writer at The New Yorker and some experts have examined Medicare data from the successful hospitals of 10 regions, and they have found evidence that more effective, lower-cost care is possible.
Please be ’sure’ to visit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html?hp for credible evidences !
Some have followed the Mayo model with salaried doctors employed, Other regions, too, have found ways to protect patients against the pursuit of revenues over patient.
And a cardiac surgeon of them said they had adopted electronic systems, examined the data and found that a shocking portion of tests were almost certainly unnecessary, possibly harmful.
According to analysis, their quality scores are well above average. Yet they spend more than $1,500 (16 percent) less per Medicare patient than the national average and have a slower real annual growth rate (3 percent versus 3.5 percent nationwide).
Surprisingly, 16 % of about $550 billion (the total of medicare cost per year) is around $88 billion per year, except for Medicaid (total cost of around $500 billion per year), medicare ‘alone’ can save $880 billion over the next decade.
In addition, under the reform package, along with the already allocated $583 billion, the wastes involving so called “doughnut hole” , the unnecessary subsidies for insurers, abuse, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits etc are weeded out, the concern over revenue (below) might be a thing of the past.
(( Net Medicare and Medicaid savings of $465 billion + the $583 billion revenue package = $1048 billion – the previously estimated $1.042 trillion cost of reform = $6 billion surplus – $245 billion (the 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts) = the estimated deficit of $239 billion ))
In modernized society, the business lacking IT system is unthinkable just like pre-electricity period, nevertheless, the last thing to expect is happening now in the sector requiring the best accuracy in respect to dealing with human lives. Apparently the errors by no e-medical records have spawned the crushing lawsuits (Medical malpractice lawsuits cost at least $150 billion per year), and these costs have led to the unnecessary tests, treatments, even more profits so far. And in different parts of the U.S., patients get two to three times as much care for the same disease, with the same result.
Thank You !
August 15th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
While the state (my employer) eats most of the premium cost for me, it is easy to see the degradation of the system. Day 1 I had no co-pay to visit a doctor and a $3 co-pay for prescriptions. Today I pay $25-$40 for a visit and $15-$40 for prescriptions. Not to mention deductibles for wellness tests. And the premium the state pays keeps driving them to find less expensive alternatives. At least I HAVE insurance.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:49 am
I do not proclaim to be an expert in regard to healthcare. In fact, unlike you, I probably know very little. I will admit to be somewhat skeptical about government interference in anything though. I just don’t understand why so many people automatically assume that if something, ANYTHING, could use improvement or has failed, then the government should always be the one to fix it. How are you certain that government healthcare will never fail you? And what makes those writing this bill experts when it comes to healthcare? I genuinely would like to know.
If it’s based on the notion that those writing and implementing the bill are inherently better because their motive is that of a pure, just one, thereby rendering the bill an automatic success; and conversely, the private healthcare industry is a colossal failure because it is motivated by greed, then aren’t we failing to see the incentive for those in office? The more money we are required to give to the government, the more power those elected into office gain and we lose. How can one judge the intentions of those employed by the private healthcare industry and not apply those same standards concerning the motivations of those running for office?
I am by no means saying that the current healthcare system is acceptable, but merely questioning those who immediately jump to the assumption that although there may be correlations with certain instances in life, that doesn’t necessarily make it a cause-effect relationship.
If government healthcare in England is so wonderful, why did my friend have to come back to the States to have her tonsils removed? There was no telling how long she would have to wait in severe pain, so much that she was barely able to speak. (She also happens to be very liberal, so this isn’t coming from a so-called biased, Republican.) My thoughts: thank goodness she had a place to go – here.
What I would like to know/find out is: how do the current government medicare and medicaid systems affect doctors’ costs, health insurance costs, etc.? How much money is won by attorneys or individuals and lost by insurers in frivolous lawsuits regarding healthcare each year? And if your statement about ‘people living in advanced countries with universal healthcare live longer’ is true then, I would be curious to know if the universal healthcare is in actuality the cause, as opposed to some overlooked correlation.
There are just a few of my questions/thoughts. I would love to hear your response. I’ll keep an open mind. I just like logical, reasonable discussion, which I believe you are a fan of as well.