Living with Diabetes

Obama Care

Written by

kathleen

in

First, I’ll say that I took the job I have because of the health care benefits (and every other job before it), and that I have only had one medical procedure denied in the past 4 years. 

In fact, my lap band surgery cost me less than $1000 total, even jumping through the hoops.  My insulin pump did not cost me anything out of pocket.

That being said, Obama Care scares me.  I don’t want my insurance messed with.  And I pay quite a bit monthly for premiums, about $300 a month right now.  But with my medical issues, I need that much health insurance and I would pay for supplemental if it still was available.

My first argument against Obama Care is to look at the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  It is an example of the current administration way of doing things:

    • The method of communication did not work well.
    • They ran out of money
    • They screwed up other entities (local charities are claiming they lost donations)
    • The car dealers have no idea when they are going to get their money.

My second argument against Obama Care is the number of industries and job we’ll lose.  We will eventually lose companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield and their workers will lose their jobs. You think the economy sucks now … and a lot of those people are pink collar workers.

So here’s my solution:

The existing health insurance programs should be expanded so that people can buy their own policies.  They still won’t be cheap, but it should be competitive with group policies.

Health savings plans should be mandatory for people under 30.  A health savings plan (as opposed to a flexible spending plan), allows a user to save money in an account forever, be drawn for medical expenses, and earns interest.  That way if they do not choose insurance they still have a fund.  Also, health insurance plans should be able to be paid for out of the fund.

I think we’ll actually make more jobs this way.

Comments

6 responses to “Obama Care”

  1. Tony Elmquist Avatar
    Tony Elmquist

    Hi Kathleen –
    I’m afraid I have to disagree – pretty strongly – with your take on Obamacare, as it’s being labeled. The comparison to Cash for Clunkers is inappropriate; nobody has ever done Cash for Clunkers before. It’s a new idea, and projections of the popularity, cost, etc. of it were necessarily speculative. The problem with it has been that it has been vastly more popular than expected; more money has been appropriated, and the backlog of dealers waiting for reimbursement, caused by the massive popular response to the program, will clear up.
    The government has plenty of experience running health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health Care program. Medicare is very popular – the sadly misinformed fellow at the town hall who cried out “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” would not have been so concerned if he didn’t appreciate his (government-provided) healthcare.
    This is not to mention the fact that every other industrialized nation has more government involvement in healthcare, ranging from mandated insurance pools to single-payer systems, and all have better health-care indices, at far lower costs, than we do.
    I have Type 1 diabetes. I also have excellent insurance. Everything I have needed has been provided for. But I feel trapped by our current system – health insurance being linked to employment causes an unnecessary drag on our economy, limiting the flexibility of people to switch employers, seek employment in new fields… it adds inefficiency to our system of employment.
    Your fears of job losses confuse me – if health care and health insurance is to be provided to more people, the number of people employed doing it ought to rise, no? The employer may change, but the number of employees must rise. And if not, that just means that there are horrible inefficiencies in the system we have.
    We currently have the most expensive health care system in the world – and it’s not the best. Our health care choices are currently being made by faceless bureaucrats whose number one concern is the bottom line. I’d gladly take a chance with faceless bureaucrats whose performance is based on health care provided, not dollars earned.

    Reply
  2. Tony Elmquist Avatar
    Tony Elmquist

    Hi Kathleen –
    I’m afraid I have to disagree – pretty strongly – with your take on Obamacare, as it’s being labeled. The comparison to Cash for Clunkers is inappropriate; nobody has ever done Cash for Clunkers before. It’s a new idea, and projections of the popularity, cost, etc. of it were necessarily speculative. The problem with it has been that it has been vastly more popular than expected; more money has been appropriated, and the backlog of dealers waiting for reimbursement, caused by the massive popular response to the program, will clear up.
    The government has plenty of experience running health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health Care program. Medicare is very popular – the sadly misinformed fellow at the town hall who cried out “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” would not have been so concerned if he didn’t appreciate his (government-provided) healthcare.
    This is not to mention the fact that every other industrialized nation has more government involvement in healthcare, ranging from mandated insurance pools to single-payer systems, and all have better health-care indices, at far lower costs, than we do.
    I have Type 1 diabetes. I also have excellent insurance. Everything I have needed has been provided for. But I feel trapped by our current system – health insurance being linked to employment causes an unnecessary drag on our economy, limiting the flexibility of people to switch employers, seek employment in new fields… it adds inefficiency to our system of employment.
    Your fears of job losses confuse me – if health care and health insurance is to be provided to more people, the number of people employed doing it ought to rise, no? The employer may change, but the number of employees must rise. And if not, that just means that there are horrible inefficiencies in the system we have.
    We currently have the most expensive health care system in the world – and it’s not the best. Our health care choices are currently being made by faceless bureaucrats whose number one concern is the bottom line. I’d gladly take a chance with faceless bureaucrats whose performance is based on health care provided, not dollars earned.

    Reply
  3. Tony Elmquist Avatar
    Tony Elmquist

    I’m glad that you are working to get your mother’s blood sugars under control; and sad to hear that she’s not getting the kind of care she needs or deserves. But the problem is the clinic, is it not? All the excellent hospitals in my home town take Medicare just like they take private insurance – I could go to the same center I do now on Medicare, and get the same treatment. As for VA care, I do know that it varies from place to place. But hey, the VA sent my grandfather to the Mayo Clinic for his heart treatment – the best of the best.
    I guess my point is that data isn’t the plural of anecdote. The fact remains that we pay vastly more for health care than any other industrialized nation – and get worse results. Have a look at some of these statistics:
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
    Yes, we do do a lot of R&D – but so do the Germans and the French – and after all, it was a Canadian who discovered insulin.
    I’m not sure I’m for real “government healthcare” – a single-payer system. I lived under one in England, and while I appreciated that I didn’t pay a thing to get a bad back treated, the treatment wasn’t great. But I also lived under a sort of private-public insurance pool system – in Germany – and the health care was amazing. Paperwork is standardized, coverage is basically mandated, purchased from a pool of private insurers – and they are healthier and pay less for their health care than we do.
    That’s what I’d like to see here – streamline the paperwork, provide a public option for those who can’t afford private options, pool insurers together to spread the risk, and mandate coverage to bring young, health people who think they can go without into the fold. Oh, and eliminate pre-existing conditions exemptions. That’s the tradeoff in the current bill, as I understand it.
    I don’t think our positions are too far from each other – the bill as it stands really doesn’t create “government healthcare” – but it does take some steps toward streamlining our system and guaranteeing coverage for all.
    Best,
    Tony

    Reply
  4. Tony Elmquist Avatar
    Tony Elmquist

    I’m glad that you are working to get your mother’s blood sugars under control; and sad to hear that she’s not getting the kind of care she needs or deserves. But the problem is the clinic, is it not? All the excellent hospitals in my home town take Medicare just like they take private insurance – I could go to the same center I do now on Medicare, and get the same treatment. As for VA care, I do know that it varies from place to place. But hey, the VA sent my grandfather to the Mayo Clinic for his heart treatment – the best of the best.
    I guess my point is that data isn’t the plural of anecdote. The fact remains that we pay vastly more for health care than any other industrialized nation – and get worse results. Have a look at some of these statistics:
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
    Yes, we do do a lot of R&D – but so do the Germans and the French – and after all, it was a Canadian who discovered insulin.
    I’m not sure I’m for real “government healthcare” – a single-payer system. I lived under one in England, and while I appreciated that I didn’t pay a thing to get a bad back treated, the treatment wasn’t great. But I also lived under a sort of private-public insurance pool system – in Germany – and the health care was amazing. Paperwork is standardized, coverage is basically mandated, purchased from a pool of private insurers – and they are healthier and pay less for their health care than we do.
    That’s what I’d like to see here – streamline the paperwork, provide a public option for those who can’t afford private options, pool insurers together to spread the risk, and mandate coverage to bring young, health people who think they can go without into the fold. Oh, and eliminate pre-existing conditions exemptions. That’s the tradeoff in the current bill, as I understand it.
    I don’t think our positions are too far from each other – the bill as it stands really doesn’t create “government healthcare” – but it does take some steps toward streamlining our system and guaranteeing coverage for all.
    Best,
    Tony

    Reply
  5. Lorrie Avatar
    Lorrie

    I think that we need to go a little deeper with the statement, “The government has plenty of experience running health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health Care program.”
    I do agree that they have the experience of running these agencies, however they do not have the business knowledge to run them. The only reason that Medicare, Medicaid, the VA Health Care or even the U.S. Postal Service are still doing business despite that fact that they are “broke” is that Big Goverment continually funnels money into them, so it will be with the Health Care Plan from the Obama Team.
    I”m a 50+ year old Type 2 Diabetic, who has listened to everything that I can get my hands on about the future of Health Care Plans. I have listened to Obama personally say that we diabetics are one of the leading drains on the health industry today and that something needs to be done about diabetes. He has also said that where cheaper drugs can be used then patients will be switched over to them.
    I don’t want my medical need to be in the hands of anyone but the doctors that I choose. If Obama wants to prove to us that he knows what is best for us in our health needs then let him change Medicare, Medicaid, the VA Health Care and U.S. Postal Service into break-even or profitable agencies first and we can talk about his Health Care Bill.

    Reply
  6. Lorrie Avatar
    Lorrie

    I think that we need to go a little deeper with the statement, “The government has plenty of experience running health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health Care program.”
    I do agree that they have the experience of running these agencies, however they do not have the business knowledge to run them. The only reason that Medicare, Medicaid, the VA Health Care or even the U.S. Postal Service are still doing business despite that fact that they are “broke” is that Big Goverment continually funnels money into them, so it will be with the Health Care Plan from the Obama Team.
    I”m a 50+ year old Type 2 Diabetic, who has listened to everything that I can get my hands on about the future of Health Care Plans. I have listened to Obama personally say that we diabetics are one of the leading drains on the health industry today and that something needs to be done about diabetes. He has also said that where cheaper drugs can be used then patients will be switched over to them.
    I don’t want my medical need to be in the hands of anyone but the doctors that I choose. If Obama wants to prove to us that he knows what is best for us in our health needs then let him change Medicare, Medicaid, the VA Health Care and U.S. Postal Service into break-even or profitable agencies first and we can talk about his Health Care Bill.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts