Sebelius defends maternity coverage for men in Obamacare

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I can't see how a state managed system could work unless everyone stayed home or it was managed federally. How would your care be transferred if you pay into it in say, Vermont and then you go on holiday in GA and GA decided not to implement a similar system? Insurance companies would love it of course, another slice of pie offering high price 'holiday' type insurance every time you cross state lines. Another nightmare scenario.

Try to learn something.

Canada's health care is managed by each Province. Seems to work for them...lots of them visit the USA without fear (I know, French is the 2nd language here) Our health care facilities treat hundreds of thousands of Canadians each year. Their healthplan sends them here when they cannot provide what they need on a timely basis. FAHC and Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (CVPH) are the "overflow" providers for Montreal and Ottawa.

google it.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Because you have no clue. Vermont has such a plan. We have had it since 2006. I have an insurance card in my pocket. If I go to Georgia and need care I give them my card. No nightmares. #######? It covered Alla and the boys right away because ANY legal resident is eligible. My premiums are very reasonable, emphasis on "VERY" and it is full coverage except for a small co-pay for pharmacy and $10 for office visits. Currently it is a very popular option for coverage. Next year we will have single payer that covers everyone. In 2009 I had heart bypass surgery and paid exactly -0- out of pocket for it. I am diabetic and my monthly prescriptions come to a total co-pay of $70. We have an outstanding medical facility here. It is one of our leading industries. Google "Fletcher Allen Healthcare" FAHC is a private employer, the employees are not government employees. The state does not provide "care" they provide payment for the care...insurance.

There is no "transfer" of care. The state is providing insurance. The insurance pays wherever you get treatment as long as you are a resident of Vermont. Why is this so difficult for you to imagine?

Insurance companes HATED it and lobbied heavily to prevent the implementation of the plan. We told them to ####### off.

The chairman of the state Senate committee that oversees the coverage has a small store in my city. Pasha worked in his store part time during the winter. If I have a problem with my coverage I can go buy a cup of coffee in his store and talk to him about it any weekday morning. The Governor comes once per month. Where is the nightmare?

If this works so well, I wish the Federal goverment would simply ask each state to create a system using VT as a template.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not entirely sure where you are going with your analogy but its not what I was saying. I'm arguing for a federal mandate requiring state level healthcare that would be reciprocal across all 50 states but ultimately managed and run by each state and perhaps subsidized by federal tax dollars from an NI type payment.

That would probably work. Cleanly the US needs its own version of a system to cater for the particular needs it has to cater too - I am never sure what people are objecting to when they object to federal government, some object to it simply because it exists, others are more pragmatic. Obviously there would have to be a way to manage it across all states.

[BatmanUSA 105]

Like Gary said, the healthcare insurance industry lobbied heavily against it....

consider all the insurance companies nationwide, now think about how much money they have, now think about how much money a politician needs to spend for reelection.....

get the picture.?

[unsmiley 111]

It isn't? Seems the federal government is doing quite well running Medicare and Tricare. So well, in fact, that beneficiaries of these programs are far more satisfied with their health care than those enslaved to the private insurance companies or the state run Medicaid services.

(1) Yeah, the government is running Medicare so "well" that it is projected to go bankrupt even BEFORE Social Security does.

(2) And of course the beneficiaries are happy with it - they pull out much more in benefit dollars than they put in. Hence, we have #1.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If this works so well, I wish the Federal goverment would simply ask each state to create a system using VT as a template.

Why hasn't your state done it? They do not need the Feds to ask, and we have a waiver from Pelosicare. Starting in 2014 we will have single payer insurance. Right now the plan is an option for employers and individuals.

Massachusetts also has thei rown plan...so called "Romneycare". I believe they have had a few more problems than Vermont, but look who runs Assachusetts! However the plan is in effect and everyone has coverage.

You are mistaking the whol epurpose. The Feds don't want or need a system that "works well" they need a system that gives them control of 1/7th of the US economy. Doing it by state denies that to the Feds.

In addition to our great insurance, our fantastic Fletcher Allen Healthcare will offer FREE medical care, without limit, to any resident of Vermont or the two counties of New York directly across the lake (Essex and Clinton Counties) for ANY expenses not covered by their insurance. FAHC is a huge medical complex encompassing every medical practice and is spread around the state. If you live in Vermont, you need never have an out of pocket expense for any medical need with the exception of prescriptions which have a very small co-pay.

We, in Vermont, said that our health system needed to be improved, needed to have better access for everyone and we grabbed the knobs and DID IT. Long before Obama was even thought of as Presidential candidate. It is one of the reasons that Vermont ranks at the very top as "healthiest" state.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Medicare works more like a state run insurance company than an NHS.

Only Medicare isn't state run. It's run by the federal government. As is Tricare. What is run by the states is Medicaid and that program isn't working nearly as well for its beneficiaries as the former two.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Like Gary said, the healthcare insurance industry lobbied heavily against it....

consider all the insurance companies nationwide, now think about how much money they have, now think about how much money a politician needs to spend for reelection.....

get the picture.?

OMG! The insurance companies HATED it. We were flooding our Representatives and Senators assuring them we wanted this plan! They hated it because many, many employers chose to drop their group plans and simply contribute to the state plan for their employees. The employees got better insurance and the employers saved money on their portion of premiums.

Insurance companies LOVE Obamacare because it is "requiring" everyone to buy their ####### at higher rates. The deuctibles alone are making their mouths water.

Vermont has no such thing as "travel insurance" We have insurance. My insurance card works anywhere that accepts insurance, just like anyone else with insurance. This is no mystery. we simply pooled the state into one "group" got group rates for the whole state and pass them on to the customers. Subsidies are available for those making under certain income levels (means tested) and it maxes out at $150 per person/month. There are NO deductibles, just small co-pays for office visits and prescritions.

The Federal government could have done the same thing...even been "self insured". Simply extend the Fed coverage( that Congress is not willing to give up for Pelosicare) to everyone. We are ALL one big group.

My cataract surgery last year cost me -0- and I paid $50 for 5 office visits (before and after) and $21 for prescription eye drops. I am having the other eye done in two weeks. Same deal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(1) Yeah, the government is running Medicare so "well" that it is projected to go bankrupt even BEFORE Social Security does.

(2) And of course the beneficiaries are happy with it - they pull out much more in benefit dollars than they put in. Hence, we have #1.

Sure, when healthcare cost keeps going up and premiums are not allowed to keep pace and when you keep adding benefits without raising the required revenues to pay for them, that would be a problem. Medicare part D ring a bell? Medicare Advantage ring a bell? Both add significant cost to the system and neither has a source to fund that extra cost. Wanna know what geniuses passed both? Right, the same geniuses that now complain that Medicare is in trouble financially. They know it is because they worked hard to make sure that it would be. They never wanted the program to begin with and they continue to do all they can to abolish it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Like Gary said, the healthcare insurance industry lobbied heavily against it....

consider all the insurance companies nationwide, now think about how much money they have, now think about how much money a politician needs to spend for reelection.....

get the picture.?

And you hit on another point. Elections.

Originally the Senators were appointed by their state legislatures. There were no Senate elections. Thi smeans that one house of Congress was not subject to election...and not subject to campaigns or campaign financing. They could not be "bought" yet their approval was required for all legislation. Brilliant idea! If we still had this, there would be no need for "campaign finance reform" You could bribe all the Representatives you want and get nowhere in the Senate.

The entire dynamics would change...and that WAS the point.

The ACA is about government CONTROL and nothing else. As we see, they do no tcare if you have good coverage or even affordable coverage. We DID see that they demand to be in CONTROL. And then deny they have control ...or even knowledge...when it all goes to hell in a hand basket.

We should repeal the amendment changing the Senate to elected office.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Kenyan care is not about saving money.. It is about control of the population. In the end our health care system will be like the VA hospitals pure and simple.

[Ban Hammer 12,863]

It isn't? Seems the federal government is doing quite well running Medicare and Tricare. So well, in fact, that beneficiaries of these programs are far more satisfied with their health care than those enslaved to the private insurance companies or the state run Medicaid services.

i find this quite amusing. you are quite enthused about tricare, while someone like me, who has tricare, is not impressed.

but i'm sure my first hand experience will be discounted in favor of what someone has read.....

[pro_star 52]

Okay yes Canadian health care is controlled by the provinces. Does not always cover for trips down to the us (those overflow cases are judged on a case by case basis. If I just randomly showed up to some hospital in...oh let's say Montana it's closest...I'd have to pay through the nose if I didn't have travel insurance. If it was a specialist that I couldn't get in Canada...then I may get approved by Alberta health to go down).

Province to province. Let's say I'm visiting the family in Ontario and I need to go to the doc or hospital. They take my Alberta health card, get the info off that, and bill Alberta health...same as they'd do with ohip if I had an ohip card. (Ontario health)

I'm going to miss my health care once I move...

[unsmiley 111]

Sure, when healthcare cost keeps going up and premiums are not allowed to keep pace and when you keep adding benefits without raising the required revenues to pay for them, that would be a problem. Medicare part D ring a bell? Medicare Advantage ring a bell? Both add significant cost to the system and neither has a source to fund that extra cost. Wanna know what geniuses passed both? Right, the same geniuses that now complain that Medicare is in trouble financially. They know it is because they worked hard to make sure that it would be. They never wanted the program to begin with and they continue to do all they can to abolish it.

Baloney- your implication is false. FYI true conservatives HATE Medicare part D, and always have. It is a typical, unnecessary big government spending program without adequate funding. It was only passed to curry favor with a perceived important segment of the population to secure their votes, like any politician, Republicans or Democrats.

But either way, no matter who is responsible, it is another example of the government doing nothing right.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I said, the Dem should have gone all out for Universal Health care - going for a compromise that the Reps could support because it kept the system in private hands was a waste of time.