Shocking News: "Dems' Health Plans Cover More People, Cost Less Than Bush's"

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Shocking News: "Dems' Health Plans Cover More People, Cost Less Than Bush's"

Bush's health care plan not most effective
Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:30pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least two of the health care proposals being presented to Congress would cover all or nearly all of the Americans who lack health insurance, and many would lower spending, too, according to an independent report released on Monday.

Many of the plans would do more to cover uninsured Americans and lower costs than President George W. Bush's proposals, said the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health care issues.

Health care has emerged as one of the top political issues of 2007, with groups as diverse as labor unions and major retailers teaming up to propose changes.

Several studies have found fault with the current U.S. system -- a free-for-all in which employers provide most health care, government programs provide much of the rest and 47 million Americans are left with no health insurance.

"If we don't move to make changes to our failing health care system, the number of uninsured in this country is projected to rise to 56 million by 2013," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a statement.

"Many of these proposals demonstrate that it is possible to move toward the high performance health care system Americans want and deserve while assuring access to health care for everyone," Davis said.

For Monday's report, staffers at the fund analyzed 10 health care plans introduced in 2006 and 2007 in the U.S. Congress, as well as Bush's proposals.

California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark's AmeriCare proposal that builds on Medicare and the employer-based system could save families with low and moderate incomes a collective $142.6 billion in 2007 and would cover 47.8 million extra Americans, the study found. Continued...



http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._RTRUKOC_0_US-HEALTHCARE-CONGRESS.xml&src=rss
 
This sounds like its cheaper to administer not necessarily cheaper overall. It sounds like its more efficient but still bigger and thus more expensive.
 
IHateGovernment said:
This sounds like its cheaper to administer not necessarily cheaper overall. It sounds like its more efficient but still bigger and thus more expensive.
Click to expand...

That's because the democrats plan covers more people. If the objective is to help the uninsured get coverage surely a more efficient and sweeping approach is better. Too bad they didn't give a final price tag on it.
 
yeah Bush did really well on the pill bill didn't he ? Why would we expect anything different on the health care plan of his ?
 
Ok, I read the article and it does not state a link to the actual plan. Other than altering or adding to medicare, do you have any more details on the plan itself? I will reserve my opinion until I have read the actual plan in more detail.
 
That's because the democrats plan covers more people. If the objective is to help the uninsured get coverage surely a more efficient and sweeping approach is better. Too bad they didn't give a final price tag on it.

It might be better to describe it then as more efficient or a better value than saying it is cheaper. A bike is still cheaper than a car even if a car does more.
 
IHateGovernment said:
That's because the democrats plan covers more people. If the objective is to help the uninsured get coverage surely a more efficient and sweeping approach is better. Too bad they didn't give a final price tag on it.

It might be better to describe it then as more efficient or a better value than saying it is cheaper. A bike is still cheaper than a car even if a car does more.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Either way, I fully support a nationalized healthcare umbrella. Patient prices versus negotiated rates are absolutely ridiculous.
 
I'd be curious to see how well CHIP programs have been working to see how they can be applied to all citizens. And of course I prefer state plans, laboratories of democracy you know. Vermont, Hawaii and Mass have interesting approaches to these issues and I would favor a competing market of ideas in this area than the federal government creating one for every state.
 
IHateGovernment said:
This sounds like its cheaper to administer not necessarily cheaper overall. It sounds like its more efficient but still bigger and thus more expensive.
Click to expand...

I think you're right - I stand corrected.

The Dems plans are more cost efficient, and save people more money on healthcare on a per capita basis. That is a more accurate statement.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'd be curious to see how well CHIP programs have been working to see how they can be applied to all citizens. And of course I prefer state plans, laboratories of democracy you know. Vermont, Hawaii and Mass have interesting approaches to these issues and I would favor a competing market of ideas in this area than the federal government creating one for every state.
Click to expand...


I think we need a national healthcare policy. It benefits the nation as a whole.

And CHIPS and Medicaid are already implemented and managed by states. There are broad federal guidelines, but I agree that States should have latitude and authority to implement and manage these programs.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'd be curious to see how well CHIP programs have been working to see how they can be applied to all citizens. And of course I prefer state plans, laboratories of democracy you know. Vermont, Hawaii and Mass have interesting approaches to these issues and I would favor a competing market of ideas in this area than the federal government creating one for every state.
Click to expand...

I'm in the middle of reading this book, "When Affirmative Action Was White". The background of the book is that, the author, upon discovering that poverty, education and employment, generally did not improve for blacks in the years following the New Deal, set out to find out why. What he writes about is how the programs of the New Deal, were implemented, by Southern insistence, by the individual states and localities. Because of this, many blacks were shut out entirely, or received very little benefits of these programs.

It was something that LBJ tried to change, because he understood exactly what was going on, with his Great Society, which did directly benefit many blacks. Unfortuntely, it was underfunded due to his obsession with the Vietnam war. The old guns or butter, but you're not going to get money for both thing.

This is really a fascinating book, and your post reminded me of the possible problems with state and local, rather than federal, control. We've come a long way since then, yes, but far enough? I don't know.
 
Very good point Darla, I agree, it needs to be overseen on a federal level so your new boyfriends state (AL) cannot discriminate in the administration of the plan.
 
Yes Darla I am aware of that. But I think the solution to states using racism in their public policy it to have government oversight to ensure they are not violating the 14th amendment.

This does not mean however that having state planned and funded initiatives should be thrown out entirely.

Beyond that centrally planned initiatives are part of the reason of the blue state/red state phenomenon. The Blue tax base funds the red states. Therefore there is no pain for their mismanagement of their systems. Thus they cruise by by offering sub standard education and subsistence benefits programs. Then the politicians down there rail against the national policies that have benefitted them since the populace of these states is not aware of the actual benefit being siphoned to them by other states in the union.

Federalism will force these states to clean up their act. As it is now we have perpetual welfare for states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama.
 
The states will find a way. As I said Hawaii, Vermont and Mass all have very different approaches to an idea that can be part of the dialogue when another states seeks to deal with this issue. Without states trying their own programs we don't have any real data to look at when trying to select a new plan.
 
uscitizen said:
Very good point Darla, I agree, it needs to be overseen on a federal level so your new boyfriends state (AL) cannot discriminate in the administration of the plan.
Click to expand...

Don't you pick on him! For God sakes, have you heard what Tiana has been doing with his penis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top