Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Who has better health care plan: Democrats or Republicans?

I don't think I can trust the Republicans to do anything right. First a hospital in California stops taking Blue Cross patients because Blue Cross does not pay. The insurance company is mum on the subject and continue to tout their achievements. Then I find out the U.S. President's uncle is on the board of directors.

I think Kucinich's plan of taking on the insurance companies has some merit.

Does any republican have a good plan?

Hospital stops accepting Blue Cross patients

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_7957613

There is no news release about this on the company website

http://www.bluecrossca.com/wps/portal/chpfooter?co...

George Bush's uncle, William H.T. (Bucky) Bush is on the board of directors of the company. http://ir.wellpoint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p=i...

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    NONE of the candidates, either party, has a good plan at all.

    Insurers are greedy and I suspect BC/BS was being so, though as there are all these secrecy agreements, you can't see. However, I do know that it's normal for insurers to deny claims to make money, see

    Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money (http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPeenotestimo...

    and

    "the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.

    A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”

    (hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’" Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion."

    --Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128

    and

    While growing into a colossus, UnitedHealth has repeatedly failed to perform its basic job of paying medical bills. UnitedHealth, which covers 70 million Americans, has been sanctioned in nine states for paying claims slowly; shortchanging doctors, hospitals, or patients; or poorly handling complaints and appeals.

    One Nebraska woman complained to state regulators that UnitedHealth's computers had incorrectly rejected claims related to her son's surgery six times.

    At one point, UnitedHealth owed Dr. George Schroedinger, an orthopedic surgeon, $600,000. He and his clinic sued UnitedHealth of the Midwest in 2004.

    Deciding for the clinic, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh of Missouri declared that the company's claims processing systems were "flawed in many ways, denying, reducing, and improperly processing claims on a regular basis. And despite innumerable requests, United was unwilling to remedy the underlying errors in its systems" (Star-Tribune Dec. 12, 2007).

    Payment troubles continued after the verdict, and Dr. Schroedinger filed a second lawsuit. "These people can never get it right, which says to me that they just plain lie," he said in an interview.

    Failure to pay isn't the only complaint. The insurer also gives incorrect information on which physicians are in its network, creating enormous problems for physicians' staff.

    The AMA said that no other insurer has prompted as many complaints as UnitedHealth about abusive and unfair payment practices. AMA officials have met with UnitedHealth executives 16 times since 2000, with little to show for it.

    "They have always got a new plan to fix it," said Dr. William G. Plested III, past president of the AMA. But "nothing ever happens."

    It seems to us that this case is just the tip of the insurance iceberg. More and more stories are appearing daily in the news media about how insurance company are instructing employees their jobs are to deny claims and/or delay payments.

    With such a high percentage of medical premiums and other costs going to the legal profession, to maintain compliance with endless government rules/regulations and being hoarded by the insurance companies and executives — is it any wonder medical costs are increasing so dramatically?

    It's time to take a closer look at the medical insurance companies.

    UnitedHealth Group is not the first medical insurance company to rob patients, hospitals and clinics to pay obscene salaries to their executives.

    It's a modern day robbing patients to pay pimps.

    Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., comments on medical-legal issues and is a visiting fellow in economics and citizenship at the International Trade Education Foundation of the Washington International Trade Council.

    Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a senior fellow and board member of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

    http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medical_insura...

    Yes the last story IS about United Health Care, BUT the big insurers in general behave that way as the author noted.

    The good news is that if people are interested, there IS a sensible plan, but the pols are ignoring it (I have emailed Senators and several Congressmen. They ignore it. Seeing the junk legislation they turn out on health issues, I think I see why--nothing in it for them.)

    There IS a sensible plan that does NOT force patients on it with fear of fines; does NOT impose the costs on employers; does NOT raise our taxes; and DOES resolve another abuse of the taxpayer in its funding, provides for preventative care (moral and economical), and would prevent bankruptcies (more than half are caused by medical bills and most of those folks have insurance). Check it out:

    http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

  • 4 years ago

    Neither to my satisfaction. 2 things need to be addressed first: Regulation of Insurance companies to not be able to deny coverage for a preexisting condition, being able to sell their product over state lines, would make health insurance more competitive. Tort reform is needed. I do like the Health Care Co-opt mentioned by a poster. I have seen it work in small cities. I do not understand peoples obsession with Palin, however. That first part of legislative work did talk about doctor's decisions only, with NO input from the family, to continue treatment, or deny treatment. It is not a lie. It is even happening today. Just not at such an 'in your face' level. Example: PT goes to hospital needing critical care. Hospital stabilizes pt. Hospital releases pt to a long term care rehab facility to re-cooperate. Two days later pt takes a dive for the worse, goes back to the hospital. Hospital meds up pt, for 'comfort care', sends pt back to rehab. Rehab facility has a medical board that decides to take over this pt care. Pt gets rehabbed and is released to go home in one month. If Hospitalists orders were followed, pt would have died in two weeks. Less than stellar facilities would accept hospital instructions and allow pt 'comfort care' to die. It really DOES happen, but it's not quite up to Death Panel status yet.

  • gldmj5
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I personally do not care for any plans I have read or heard so far. What exactly is Kucinich's plan? I'll have to look into his further, although I like what I'm hearing by taking on the insurance companies. I would like to see a plan that simultaneously attempts to eliminate HMO's and managed care systems catering to employers, advocates tort reform to cut down on frivolous medical malpractice suits, and attempts to initiate a competitive non-profit healthcare insurance industry.

    Source(s): Masters in Healthcare Administration
  • 1 decade ago

    American here in NZ and regular health care plan doesn't work. This country has major problems. Same as UK and the list is too long to goon... but if it doesn't work for 4M people how is it going to work for 300M ? There is a solution but tuff solution stop all the pvt ins... and have corp and pvt people put all their premium into public ins. (this is in to Billions may be trillions..) and unemployed ( govt. pays)and retires (medicare money) put all together and this may work without breaking the system... .... This may work w/ a scale tax for health care based on income ...CEO has to pay more than a worker....

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The democrats but most of their plans are weak. Kucinich's plan is best.

    Most industrialized nations have national health coverage. Our system stinks. Look at the data. Sure it is good for 50-60% who have adequet employer-paid health care. But what about everyone else! We are probably one of the most selfish countries in the world.

  • 1 decade ago

    None of them have a real health plan yet. That won't happen until after the election, but I feel that each one of us should take care of ourselves and our family, not the goverment. Would you trust the goverment to run health care. I don't. What ever happened to being responsable for your own well being. That's what I do. I have my own health insurance. The goverment did not give it to me. I earned it by working.

  • 1 decade ago

    Before you think that about republicans... look up Ron Paul. Considering he was a doctor that delivered 4,000 babies and has dealt first hand with the health care industry... Seriously go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and read up on him. Not all Republicans are idiots! Just the ones the big media endorse

  • T E
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The repub dont have a universal health care plan, a status quo.

    If u r poor or old, u like the dem universal health care plan.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Republicans plan consists of:

    1) Blame the trial lawyers

    2) Just keep saying there is no problem with healthcare the way it is. But still the trial lawyers are still to blame.

    3) Invoke fear in people that Democrats want to make it harder for them to get care when they need it. And then blame people for daring to go to the doctor when they are sick. If they want to keep down the cost of health care they should make market-driven decisions such as they should die instead of getting care.

    4) Oh, did I mention that the trial lawyers are to blame?

  • 1 decade ago

    The Republicans have a health care plan?

    I am not sure that saying "We have the best system in the world and if we don't it's all the illegal immigrants fault" constitutes a plan does it?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.