Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.
Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.
Vote for your and your family interest first. If you are a democrat and really care about paying for someone's healthcare, just purchase a plan for a neighbor and pay for it.
Anonymous wrote:Voting for Warren or Biden anyone that ensures not one person goes bankrupt due to medical bills. Health insurance should be a given. For all. Pay private if you want but no family should lose their house due to cancer or chronic $$ Illness of child or spouse
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.
Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.
tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access
People who are not well off (Americans, no illegals) couldn't afford healthcare even pre ACA. So, unless the price goes down dramatically, people in the median income bracket can't afford to buy private insurance. The only way to control costs is for the government to regulate it like utilities.
And it's not just that medical costs are so insanely high, but that they are "hidden" at the point of service.
For example, I'm the PP with an "issue" making me uncomfortable, and which can be fixed with a very minor, 5-minute procedure. But Obamacare has a $6,000 deductible, so I'm trying to hold off until Medicare. BUT if it were only $1000, I might consider doing it now. BUt here's the kicker: I can't get a cost ahead of time! The doctors (yes, I've asked a few) all say the same thing: we won't know what it will cost you until we put it through your insurance. And I'll say, but what is the "retail" fee? They can't tell me!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.
Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.
tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access
People who are not well off (Americans, no illegals) couldn't afford healthcare even pre ACA. So, unless the price goes down dramatically, people in the median income bracket can't afford to buy private insurance. The only way to control costs is for the government to regulate it like utilities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.
Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.
I don't know how many countries do it like us -- our system is highly inefficient. People change jobs frequently and take breaks in between jobs. Tying health care with your job doesn't make a lot of sense.
Check out Andrew Yang's plan. You will not lose your current health plan but eventually the public plan will outcompete your private plan and provide better services.
Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that a lot of people on employer sponsored health insurance (needs to be a better term for it, hate having to constantly write that out) is that it’s getting more and more expensive and you constantly have to fight with them to get things covered.
Most people who have ESHI would be happy if costs were controlled more. If the question is, “do you want to pay for a mediocre health plan, so EVERYONE (illegal immigrants included!) else can also have the same mediocre health plan with long waiting times for every service?” Then the answer most people will give is no.
tl;dr : prices are the big issue, not expanded access
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.
Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.
I don't know how many countries do it like us -- our system is highly inefficient. People change jobs frequently and take breaks in between jobs. Tying health care with your job doesn't make a lot of sense.
Check out Andrew Yang's plan. You will not lose your current health plan but eventually the public plan will outcompete your private plan and provide better services.
Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.
Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.
Exactly. My "insurance" covers so little that I'm postponing a procedure I need until I reach Medicare. I'm a bit uncomfortable at times, but it isn't a threat to my health - and I just can't afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a small procedure (I'd estimate less than 5 minutes), especially after I'm paying almost $900 a month for the "insurance."
I bet that all the liberals who said it was "worth it" for me to have much worse insurance (and at a higher cost) so that low-income people can get free care will sing a different tune if THEY are the ones who end up with worse coverage. I even had a liberal on this forum tell me that I should be willing to give up life-saving medical care (if it came to that) so that poor people can get the treatments they need. Now I ask you: which one of you liberals is willing to sacrifice your life and burden your family with an avoidable loss so that other people can get insurance? Show of hands, please.
Again, what is the alternative where then someone else is not harmed, where people are not hitting lifetime max, where sick people can get insurance? Lots of complaining about what we have; zero solutions.
Medicare for all + private = the best plan
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.
Exactly. My "insurance" covers so little that I'm postponing a procedure I need until I reach Medicare. I'm a bit uncomfortable at times, but it isn't a threat to my health - and I just can't afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a small procedure (I'd estimate less than 5 minutes), especially after I'm paying almost $900 a month for the "insurance."
I bet that all the liberals who said it was "worth it" for me to have much worse insurance (and at a higher cost) so that low-income people can get free care will sing a different tune if THEY are the ones who end up with worse coverage. I even had a liberal on this forum tell me that I should be willing to give up life-saving medical care (if it came to that) so that poor people can get the treatments they need. Now I ask you: which one of you liberals is willing to sacrifice your life and burden your family with an avoidable loss so that other people can get insurance? Show of hands, please.
Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.