Your Health Insurance Plan Is Worse Than You Think: Simon Johnson And James Kwak

washingtonpost.com:

If we fail to reform our health care system this year, a major reason will be that a majority of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage and believe that reform could hurt them. According to a recent (unscientific) Consumer Reports survey, 64 percent of readers are satisfied with their plans -- down from 67 percent in 2007, but still a clear majority. A recent New York Times poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not think that health-care reform will benefit them personally; 69 percent are concerned that reform could harm the quality of their own care and 68 percent are concerned that it could limit their access to treatment.

Read the whole story: washingtonpost.com

Comments

[creolechild]

05:27 PM on 08/27/2009

If you are concerned about receiving "real" health care reform in this country, please take the time to watch a video on our current system. The video was created by Oregon physicians who are advocating for the single-payer option. The video is very informative and helped me to gain a better understanding of various aspect of health care, as we know now it.

https://www.madashelldoctorstour.com/Mad_as_Hell_Video.html

These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.

[funkalicious]

09:15 AM on 08/12/2009

So is More socialized medicare the solution or the problem?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/24/newsweek-how-to-solve-med_n_207152.html

[Viper]

01:20 AM on 08/12/2009

Health insurance company profits over the last 7 years increased 5 Fold... no increase in number insured. Real wages declined. No private sector jobs created in 8 years. Businesses ships jobs to where healthcare is single payer, government provided and cost half as much. Half the pop of detroit is gone, avg price of house 18K... across the lake in Ontario... pop growth, now produce more cars than in Michigant.. avg house price almost 200K..

You may like your health insurance, your employer does not and he will ship your job elsewhere in order to stay in business and thats what has been going on for more than a decade. The health insurance industry shipped its jobs to India long ago! Same for Dug companies... they both outsourced and ironically to countries that set the price of their drugs...

So lets give 35% of every healthcare dollar to insurance companies that treat no one and pay 3-5 times more for the same drug and drive every business that can move, out of the country...

Regards

[TeeLolly]

12:53 AM on 08/12/2009

This is the info that should be publicized and discussed as our representatives consider reform--but most of it will be ignored in favor of the MSM's obsessive portrayal of birthers and the obstructive astroturf campaigns as legitimate reflections of the will of the people ...

[LemonMeringue]

12:32 AM on 08/12/2009

Health insurance should not be tied to particular employment. Period.

[xmlman]

12:34 PM on 08/12/2009

Amen! And I have a good coverage from my employer, but I sincerely believe that we need universal coverage for everyone that is NOT employment based.

[prosha]

12:26 AM on 08/12/2009

no messy facts allowed here

[slaxx]

07:01 PM on 08/11/2009

i have health insurance. my coverage is good. but i am always worried about coming down with something serious and having my insurer rescind my policy.

[Cambridge9]

12:06 AM on 08/12/2009

And so you should be concerned about your policy being recinded if you have a major claim. At a Senate hearing a month or two ago with the heads of various HMOs and Health Ins. Cos. it was admitted that there is seldom any research of the person buying the policy. WHY?

Well, one answer was that. "We don't want anyone to have to wait to get health coverage and the research is expensive. (translation - we're glad to take the premiums until you have a claim, then we will search for ANY reason to refuse the claim).

Another was "If we delayed issuing the policy until we had determined that the individual deserved to have the insurance that individual might look elsewhere for coverage." (translation - same as above.)

Asked if there were any plans for changing this policy the answers were "NO".

[Dale Larson]

06:19 PM on 08/11/2009

Access to health care must not be connected to employment status... If you disagree with this statement then you endorse a class system where only the most deserving (i.e.,$) have access.

Support HR676. It's a Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:

* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. They would be able to better compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Better efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars flow back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.

[slaxx]

07:14 PM on 08/11/2009

you forgot to mention all of the people that won't have to suffer and d.i.e from not being able to pay.

[Dale Larson]

09:57 PM on 08/11/2009

Most lists show those. :)

I wanted to illustrate we can do the right thing and it can be good for business as well.

So much is made of hurting the small business owner by politicians yet they ignore what would help all business (except heath insurance and lawyers) and by association all regular people.

Check out HR676: http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

HR676 will get a floor debate and vote. It's about 30 pages long for the whole plan. A mere mortal can actually understand it!

What's being created in congress right now is a huge Rube Goldberg system that is so complex it will allow corporations to game the system. We are all being taken for a ride.

Check this site out:

http://hr676.org

People should actually read it before they decide it's a bad idea.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

11:53 AM on 08/13/2009

Support John Conyer's HR676

SINGLE PAYER or DIE SWINDLED !

[sandiegoconservative]

06:02 PM on 08/11/2009

How about you make it truly fair?

Don't penalize any employer for offering a plan by a fine or tax and don't require people to enroll if there is a minor change in their private insurance, but they still want to stay in the plan.

Let the "public option" go into play and support it solely by taxing those who enroll in it, with NO provisions for taxing the general public who are NOT enrolled.

Don't require individuals who don't want the insurance to have to enroll.

Require all Federal employees to enroll in the public option only and require they pay on it just like a private sponsored program.

If the plan is truly great, there will be plenty of people willing to sign up and get the health insurance THEY pay for and there will be lenty of people who will want to ditch their current plan for a better choice.

[Dale Larson]

10:06 PM on 08/11/2009

A simpler approach is everybody in - nobody out.

Single payer. HR 676 would achieve this.

Check it out: http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

HR676 will get a floor debate and vote. It's about 30 pages long for the whole plan. A mere mortal can actually understand it.

What's being created in congress right now is a huge Rube Goldberg system that is so complex it will allow people to game this system even worse than today. We are all being taken for a ride.

Check this site out for more information and contribute if it makes sense to you:

http://hr676.org

People should actually read it before they decide it's a bad idea.

[Peter007]

10:48 PM on 08/11/2009

Insurance plans should be taxed. Right now, there is a tax loophole that grants people the value of their plans without having to pay a tax on it. Its a subsidy enjoyed by people fortunate enough to have insurance. Its not offered to people that can't afford insurance. People without insurance are subsidizing those with insurance.
A public option can't pay for itself. Claims would be much higher than the premiums taken in.
It would be bankrupt within a year. The numbers don't add up.

[sandiegoconservative]

01:36 AM on 08/12/2009

People without insurance are not paying for it as they have other access to healthcare. And the people who do pay for their insurance premium do not get a tax break on the whole amount.

Claims would be much higher than premiums because the cost of a government run program is inefficient. However, if it truly was a good plan and preventative care would reduce costs as the White House is claiming, then it is a non-issue.

The REAL issue is once again, people are asked to pay for services used by someone else.

[1sparrow]

04:58 PM on 08/11/2009

if you slam blue cross you have 33% credibility for me. if you expose blue cross you have 66% credibility to me. if you eradicate blue cross from the face of the earth. you get me to wait and wish.

[rad21]

04:51 PM on 08/11/2009

With employer-paid, individuals love their healthcare plan, if their corporation / employer has not gone broke (as in the US auto industry). Without employer-paid insurance, likely the workers would benefit from higher wages, but would hate their insurance company for their cost of insurance.

Most people do not use their healthcare plan in any given year; and hence have no deductibles and co-pays. Similarly, if one is mildly sick and the cost to the individual is minimal, they will love their plan. The problem is when individual get really sick and have huge bills (with deductible, co-pays and prior authorizations), then difficulties arise for that episode; and for future insurance coverage due to "pre-existing condition."

On the other side of the coin there is the 80 / 20 rule. Eighty percent of all healthcare dollars is used by twenty percent of the population, thus depriving the rest of needed resources for preventive care etc. Lack of preventive and appropriate care, leads to visits to ER, complicated illnesses and unnecessary care; making the overall cost of healthcare in the US 17% of GDP; which is 30% more than our economic partners.

The US auto-workers were very satisfied with their healthcare plan, till their company went broke.

[Dale Larson]

10:02 PM on 08/11/2009

A simpler approach is everybody in - nobody out.

Single payer. HR 676 would achieve this.

Check it out: http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

HR676 will get a floor debate and vote. It's about 30 pages long for the whole plan. A mere mortal can actually understand it.

What's being created in congress right now is a huge Rube Goldberg system that is so complex it will allow people to game this system even worse than today. We are all being taken for a ride.

Check this site out for more information and contribute if it makes sense to you:

http://hr676.org

People should actually read it before they decide it's a bad idea.

[MIKEBC]

04:17 PM on 08/11/2009

Hey republicans, the dems are giving you the option, the freedom to keep your present health ins. and keep getting gouged the way you like it right now!

[Avanti2]

05:26 PM on 08/11/2009

This is a very tired phrase and is not really what is said in HR 3200. HR3200 clearly lays out the formation of a Gov Insurance Plan, that with potential fees and fines on employees and employers, and the diversion of hundred's of billions of funds from existing medical trust funds, intends to under price the private market so that the only insurance that will be available is the Public Option. (That's for everybody EXCEPT Congress and all Federal Employees who have conveniently been EXEMPTED from the provisions of HR3200 and ALL the other Health Care Proposals.

[sandiegoconservative]

05:56 PM on 08/11/2009

I believe some non-federal Unions are exempt as well, but not all.

Additionally, if there is a single, minor change made to your current insurance plan, it is no longer an "eligible" plan. Therefore, a change in minor coverage for secondary items would disqualify your plan even if everything else stayed the same.

[Periwinkle]

04:11 PM on 08/11/2009

Numbers, numbers, number. I've heard that 85% of Americans are happy with their health insurance and also that 85% of those with insurance are happy. Either way, it doesn't add up. If 1 out of 6 are without insurance, that eliminates the first number. Now . . . how many Americans actually have insurance. If you add up the uninsured, the Medicare and Medicaid recipients, the VA and other "government" health care programs, it's about 50% of the population. The other 50% have private insurance. If 85% of those people are happy with their insurance, that means a little over 40% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage as is.

[NWNHNM]

05:20 PM on 08/11/2009

Thank you. These numbers are as phony as a three dollar bill.

[Sepulchre]

06:49 PM on 08/11/2009

Yeah because the current system is working so well. Why don't you ask companies what is amoung their biggest overheads?

[oneeleven]

06:42 PM on 08/11/2009

fiiiiiinally, that's the figure I've been looking for. Do you have a link to any statistics? The closest I could find for the number of people actaully on medicaid, medicare, etc. was from the census figures but it was only based on 10% of the population or else 10 years old

[DRaymond]

04:08 PM on 08/11/2009

I think few people really want to face how much risk they face even if they have insurance. Unless you have a very strong government or union plan you may be on very shaky ground.

My sister in law was recently diagnosed with diabetes. Within a couple of weeks she lost her job of over twenty years (I strongly suspect a cause-effect relationship but it would be hard to prove). Now she has eighteen months to get a job with health benefits before COBRA runs out, shorter if her old company decides to drop health coverage before then. If she finds a new job without health benefits or has trouble keeping one (Will a new employer be all that willing to keep her once they find out the extra load she is adding to their group's risk rating?) she will find it impossible to find coverage in the individual insurance market at any price. So welcome to the uninsured, which will basicly mean limping along with minimal treatment and emergency rooms until she reaches 65 for Medicare or spending everything she has on health care until she is absolutely impoverished and can try for Medicaid.

Yet I bet if you had asked her a year ago if she was satisfied with her health care plan she would have said yes.

[Matt7]

04:15 PM on 08/11/2009

Stories like this are helpful, and should be highlighted more than right-wing talking hijinks and talking points.

CONGRATULATIONS HUFFPO!

At last an article that begins to actually explain the particulars of the issues behind what should be discussed in a health care debate, rather than those ridiculous spooky, scary, backroom-shadow-president, you-should-be-outraged head lies that we've been assailed with of late.

Can we get MORE news, facts, and particulars about the health care and insurance industries, and why it is that they should be reformed?

Thanks.

[slaxx]

07:10 PM on 08/11/2009

same thing happened to my sister, only it wasn't diabetes, but she was pregnant. can barely afford the COBRA and it will run out soon. hard to work when you have a 2 month old.

[JuliaRain]

03:30 PM on 08/11/2009

"...what does it mean to say that you are satisfied with your health insurance? Consider homeowner's insurance. Until you need it -- your house burns down -- you have no way of judging its quality.

The same goes for health coverage; until you have a serious illness, the kind where your plan's limits and exclusions may kick in, how do you know if your health coverage is any good? "

EXACTLY. BRAVO.