Snowe: Feds Must Make Sure All Have Health Insurance

By what authority is it the federal government's job? Leave me alone! If I want health insurance I'll buy it, otherwise I'll pay cash.

The state of Maine has a rich history of independent, hardy people who stand on their own; people who fought the Canadians and Massachusetts without permission from or benefit of the federal government. It is a beautiful state with breathtaking natural resources and the most gorgeous American regional accent in existence.

Sadly, however, it will go down in history as the state which consistently elected Republicans who absolutely did not understand the Constitution nor listen to their constituents; Republicans who could and would pass as Democrats; and, like Massashusetts, apparently elected its Senators based on who their families are.

And she hasn't even gotten her booty yet....at least that we know of.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jackie the lawyer is representing Kramer in a spilled hot coffee case, and Kramer settles for a year of free coffee, before Jackie has a chance to go for the gold.

Civil disobedience would be refusing to get insurance and refusing to pay the fine, but I suspect they will garnish wages with punishment for employers who don't comply. Whatcha gonna do?
All the animals are equal except some are more equal than others. You folks buy this plan . We have a better plan that you are buying for us. Cost to us $507 per year.
If there is such a clamor in this country for everyone to have health care and this is such a good plan, what possible reason would there be for anyone to not want it?

You can't garnish wages from the self employed, this where the civil disobedience will start. Small business's with just one person working in them. My father said yesterday that if he is forced to buy health insurance for his few employees he will close his doors, he can't afford it.

It's truly amazing in all of this "health care debate" that no one has come out and said "Take Joe for example , he makes $55000 a year and is single. Currently he is paying $240 month for health insurance and his employer picks up the rest ...under the new plan it will look like this........ " Apparently they don't want people who are actually paying for all or a portion of insurance to see what the cost and coverage will become . I will never vote for Snowe again regardless of how she votes on this enough is enough.

Still waiting -- still waiting for the congress to say that this plan will be their coverage also, as well as that for their families, and the only one utilized by the unions. Just skimmed through the current legislation, and obviously I must have missed that part.

I am not for a mandate, but what do we do about people who can afford health insurance but choose not to pay for it?

There are a lot of such people. They tend to be younger and without many assests. They make the rational choice that (1) they are not likely to get sick; (2) that if they get sick, they will be treated anyway in our system; and (3) even if they do run up a big bill, they will never be forced to pay it.

Do we start letting 25 year olds who choose a $500 a month car payment over health insurance die if they get sick or are in an accident?

Dan that's definitely a problem and a good point...... maybe the sale of this would be better supported if they presennt people with a clear and understandable plan......I have no idea what I'm really going to end up with for insurance do you??

Dan, how is it handled now? Because of the provision that the insurance companies must take you no matter what a lot of people roll the dice and only buy insurance after they get sick. But I am sure in those 2000 pages all our problems will be solved. I haven't heard any real answers to the problems they say exist. Why does insurance cost so much? Why don't people pay when they go to the emergency room (it is not a free clinic)? What exactly is the problem(s) and then we can have solutions. In this state we regulate the insurance companies to make them accept for pre-existing conditions and don't expect those costs to be passed on so in order to cure that we come up with the failure known as Dirigo and charge the insurance companies to subsidise this program, again these costs are passed on to the consumer. I don't have much faith in the govt to solve any problem they have created.

... what do we do about people who can afford health insurance but choose not to pay for it?

Long ago the government solved the problem of how to pay for Social Security and Medicare: Put a gun to the head of employers and force them to contribute, extract from employees, and manage all the paperwork. That worked out well, didn't it? Asking everyone who is now or is about to retire.

So lets just do it again and in a few short years we'll have 3 programs going bankrupt, while we take heart that we have created a few more bike paths and saved the spotted owl with all that new money spewed into the general fund.

Dan wrote,

"Do we start letting 25 year olds who choose a $500 a month car payment over health insurance die if they get sick or are in an accident?"

Of course not. However, the resulting debt belongs to the 25 year old. Why is it that the debtor is not required by law to repay oh, say, $500 per month to the hospital/doctor?

Maybe the gov should worry more about an economy where there are jobs that 25 year olds can afford a $500 car payment?

johnw: Young people make such choices even where there are plenty of jobs, Young people tend to think about today and not tomorrow.

FLNext: Have you ever heard of bankruptcy? Yes, people with unpaid medical bills do owe the bill. But a 25 year old who has no assets and who owes $10K on a $35K income can take the easy way out.

The only people who have to pay what they owe are people who have something to lose.

I'm sure once citizens are confronted with this evidence, they will gladly pay for the right to do so.

You are being silly. People are offered insurance by employers now and turn it down because they don't want to pay the 20%. The Constitution plays no part in that decision.

There needs to be consequences for choices for poor choices. There is little consequence now for not being able to pay for your own medical care.

I have a health condition that has seen me in the heart catherization lab three times in the last several years. The charges for those visits were, as you could surmise, astronomical by any reasonable measure.

We have no health insurance due to a lifetime of self-employment. We cannot afford $1,800/mo for a policy with a $10,000/yr family deductible.

So what do I do?

In a mutually agreeable arrangment with my healthcare provider I pay an affordable amount each month on each bill and both parties are happy with that arrangement. So why should the government at any level get into that situation?

What is the trouble with healthcare? Something has to be done to get the money out of it. I am not talking about fair payment for services rendered. What I am talking about is obscene profits by care providers, the insurance industry and big pharma.

I expect a healtcare provider that gives good services to be paid an amount that allows them to stay in business. But when the CEO of a large medical facility is making 7 figures a year there is something wrong with that.

The insurance industry in effect "socializes" the cost of medicine over all of those who buy insurance. People buy insurance because they are gambling that they will have medical costs larger than the cost of the insurance and will get a good deal by paying less, or nothing, for covered services. The insurance industry has to take in all that it needs to cover all costs, including administrative, and then add a profit on top of that. So the net income to the insurance industry as a whole just adds more cost the to the healthcare by factoring in the paperwork and profit.

Big pharma gives incentives to Drs and providers to prescribe their meds. Many doctors receive direct, or indirect compensation for doing same. The boob tube is loaded with ads for drugs. All designed for the poorly informed public to demand new drugs from their doc for catchy diseases like "Restless Leg Syndrome" and so on. Really trendy new stuff that has been recently made up of course to create a new market.

In addition we have MD's who own solely, or in partnerships, large diagnostic equipment such as MRI's and Cat scanners. Then refer all their patients to have this diagnostic work, often not needed, in order to profit even further from the patients ill health.

Everywhere you look there is the incentive for often large profits. If everyone paid for their own healthcare I believe this would disappear. There is no better economic system than a supply and demand state of affairs. The insurance companies are not spending their own money and neither is the government so increasingly costlier decisions are made every day. It will never change until the incentive for large needless profits is removed from the system. No better way to do this exists than to have governement get out of it and people pay their own way.

But since Harry Reid has taken over 30 million from the insurance industry during his Senate carreer and Olympia has taken nearly 2 million as her share from the insurance lobby things ain't gonna change soon.

Who thinks Olympia and Harry and all the others are going to vote to go against the insurance industry anytime soon.

The money needs to be taken out of politics also in order to help effect this change.

WC

If the health insurance situation isn't bad enough, now Libby Mitchell is proposing that all employers in the state of Maine guarantee each employee 6 paid sick days per year. Do you have any idea of the cost of that for employers, large and small? It's another totally unrealistic idea from our progressive government in Augusta.

Dan,

There are consequences for poor choices. They are natural consequences. If you cross the street without looking both ways, you may be run down by a tractor-trailer. If you ignore the laws of gravity and leap from a skyscraper, you get splattered on the grown. If you decline the choice to buy into a health insurance scheme, you have to pay for your own medical care.

I must repeat that I do not believe it is constitutional to require people to pay for a service they do not want to pay for simply because they live in the United States.

Meat is a healthy nutrient. Can the federal government make me buy for it if I choose not to eat it? Can they force me to pay for it if I choose not to eat or buy it?

It is not Constitutional to require people to buy anything. Period.

'The money needs to be taken out of politics also in order to help effect this change'

And not just from lobbyists, how about we stop using OPM to buy votes in Congress. Another example of abuse: My niece who lives in Lee is on Mainecare. She needs some dental work done and my sister in-law drives her to Bangor for the work. All she needs is a cleaning and a cavity filled. When the Dentist found out she was on Mainecare the procedure changed from one visit to three. So not only does it cost the taxpayer more the lost time and money spent going to Bangor costs my brothers family money they cannot afford.

The federal government does not need authority to do stuff, just power and will....

What happens if you choose not to buy health insurance? Very little. If you get seriously ill, you will get treatment and, in many cases, avoid paying for it.

Freedom only works when it comes with responsibility.

If we are going to allow people to choose not to have health insurance, we also need a system where people who make such a choice to do not get care that they can't pay for.

Dan wrote johnw: Young people make such choices even where there are plenty of jobs, Young people tend to think about today and not tomorrow.
There are plenty of young people who do not have an opportunity for decent paying jobs from employers that offer affordable insurance. The kid making $8 in a service sector job can afford niether insurance or the car...... and to pay their own way . We need an economy where there is better jobs for those who want them and less of a free ride for those who won't work.

I'm not talking about people making $8 an hour. I am talking about people making $25K to $50K a year who have health insurance available to them but choose not to take it because they want a new car, do not want to share an apartment with a roommate, ect.

We make it too easy for people to decide that they can't afford health insurance.

People say they can't afford health insurance and that claim is always just accepted. In many cases it is true. In some cases it is not.

There was recently an article in the KJ about the owners of a bagel shop that could not afford health insurance. Shouldn't being able to afford insuance be part of the calculation when you decided to go into business? If bagels do not provide enough of a return for you to support yourself, is that my problem?

By the way, before anyone jumps on me for not understanding the cost of health insurance: I am self-employed and pay $100 per week for my insurance and that is going up in January.

I am employed, am 61, and pay $750 per month - my employer pays the same. My heart bleeds for you, Dan. Gee, I wonder if that's covered by my policy.

I'm not complaining. I have a $1000 deductible and a 20% co-pay up to a $5000 annual out of pocket limit. I am not married and do not have kids so the $100 a week is just for me -- and I am only 41.

I broke my ankle this summer. Simple fracture. No surgery required. The bills totaled over $1500. I paid most of them because I had not met my deductible before my fall.

People who think health insurance is expensive need to understand how expensive medical bills are if you don't have insurance -- even for something simple like a broken ankle.

The amounts I mentioned in my previous post are for my wife and me. It's hard to compare realistically, due to the age difference, but my silver lining is, I'm in the highest 5-year group before Medicare kicks in. Then my troubles are over! Right? Oh, wait ...

Let's not be too quick to make insurers and drug companies the villain here. Insurance companies are in the business of making money for their investors. Drug companies spend billions to develop new medications.

How about the trial lawyers who increase the costs of health care, and therefore insurance, through their frivolous law suits? How about stupid laws (like in Maine) that prohibit purchasing insurance across state lines. Increasing private sector competition lowers prices. A fundamental rule of commerce.

When I first started working I chose not to purchase health insurance. As a single person I thought I could put the money to better use by spending it on gas and/or women. Government continues to insert itself into our daily decision making when it has no business doing so.

Both God and country (US Constitution) give most of us the ability to make our own decisions (good or bad), and we are bound by those decisions. We must accept responsibility for them whatever the outcome. Government has NO RIGHT to insert itself in such matters.

Ken and I could have health insurance for $950.00 a month. That is with the largest deductible they have and all other cost-saving items. We both have pre-existing conditions. That's $11,400 a year. The only way to "win" in that situation is to get a catastrophic disease.

We do not pay that exorbitant amount. I sock half that amount into a CD for emergencies. We pay out of pocket for doctor's visits and prescriptions. That comes to less than $11,400 a year so far. We have cancer insurance ($98.05 per month) which pays us for the preventive visits and will pay quite handsomely in the event either of us end up with cancer. If neither of us does so, the entire principle paid will be refunded at the end of 20 years.

My doctor is well aware of our non-coverage, and he is very good about giving us sample meds when needed and works with me to minimize tests and costs. I pay for his services as much as the insurance company would because it is illegal for him to charge a cash patient less than insurance or Medicare.

I have ongoing problems, and need yet another round of diagnostics. I have to pay for a neurological procedure, because the test is necessary and I can't get around it. But the full blood workup from earlier this year will suffice for blood. I must say that if I were covered by insurance, I would have in my hand orders for yet another blood test. I will pay for the neurological thing when I go.

This arrangement works for me, and I resent the federal government taking my free choice away from me in this matter. And I have to say, I am shocked that a self-described Republican seems to be espousing the idea that the federal government should have it's sticky, sweaty, filthy fingers in the matter. Or are you simply playing Devil's Advocate?

I would quite likely benefit from this legislative fiasco, particularly if the neurological problems continue. I will quite likely be eligible for Social Security and Medicare in fairly short order. But on principle, I object to this massive socialist program.