We have a high deductible plan as well, nice that the government would tell me I don't have the proper coverage.

Forcing people to get insurance. It makes sense for auto insurance since it protects the other drivers, but here, its just more fascism with a happy face.

Yeah this is the failure of mandates. It wouldn't be much better if the government got into the mixed payor market. This is also why state governments can't work. Massachusetts is just too small to negotiate effectively with the insurance industry, and way too small to fund their own insurance plan universally. This is what you'll see if you keep voting for Republicans though.

Single payor or nationalized industry are the only two schemes that have consistently succeeded in achieving universal health care.

And yet, outside of experimental treatments which haven't been approved in the US, people still flock here for treatment from other countries.

Odd that.

Nothing says 'socialist democrat' any louder than someone wanting to force you to participate in something that costs you your money to pay for someone elses interests and then wants to jail you for refusing.

I don't think it is just the Republicans. Hillary's plan forces you to buy a policy from private insurance or the government and Obama's plan is similar except you can choose to be uninsured. The devil is in the details which we know little about at this stage but both of them are keeping the insurance companies in the loop.

Mass. is in the process of actually implementing their policy so we know most of the details now. If I understand the situation they are already backing down from requiring many middle class people to buy state approved insurance because they cannot afford it and it would cost too much to subsidize them.

I have a feeling these plans will be more of the same especially after the lobiests work their money magic on congress. The poor will be OK with government assistance and the wealthy will be OK since they have great insurance and resources. It is the working poor and middle class who are most at risk of losing everything from a sudden illness or accident.

I must be lookling at different plans.

As I have read them, both the Clinton and Obama plan allow (and encourage) those currently covered through an employer-based plan to remain with the plan if it is satisfactory.

Thats about 180+ million who, for the most part, would not be affected by either candidate's plan.

And both Clinton and Obama plans would cover the uninsured based, in part, on the federal employees and/or congressional plan model and, in part, on health pools for small businesses who currently do not provide coverage for employees. Neither is a government run program, but a program that offers choice from among a variety of private providers.

added:
Flock here?

Not likely. The last stats I recall seeing reported that medical visas to the US have been declining dramatically for the last 10 years or so while "medical tourism" has become a boom industry, with countries like Costa Rica, Singapore, Phillipines the greatest destinations.

Odd that you would say that.

There's a time what you're saying would be 100% true, not so much these days. There was also a time when a car built in the US would be considered hands down the best world wide, no so much these days.

People from the US are in fact flocking to other countries for more and more medical treatments every year. Medical tourism as it's known is a billion dollar plus a year business. India alone projects they'll be doing 2.2 billion a year by 2012.

People from the US seeking care in other countries are likely doing so because the cost of the care is 10%-25% of what it would cost in the US.

While people from countries that have socialized medicine are generally engaging in medical tourism to avoid long lines and wait times.

I moved to Mexico last year and a part of my determining factor in moving was medical care. I'm finding the quality of care is often better then what I was getting in the states and the cost is less then my deducible and co-pays back in Oregon. And yes I had health insurance from a private provider.

Here's an article from the University of Delaware that covers some of the trends:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/m...ism072505.html

That will be great if we can buy the same plan that they have for the same as they pay out of pocket with all the bells and whistles like dental and vision. Plus they can't charge more for high risks. With the insurance companies in the loop, I'll believe it when I see it.

I suspect that when we know all the details that they will determine it is too expensive like Mass. and working people who do not have employer furnished insurance will be unable to afford it. Heck, today those of us who have to buy our own can't even claim our health insurance costs as a deduction. The poor already get subsidized.

These polititians get a lot of money from the health care, pharma and insurance industries so they will make out OK no matter what they come up with. I believe they are talking a good game now (with few details) in order to score points in order to get elected. Once in office reality will set in.

Interesting. A study was recently published that has found "curing obesity" (ie, preventative care) actually increases medical costs... simply because patients live longer.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0050029&ct=1

Guess NHS might want to rethink their obesity programs.

The same argument could be made for any preventative care, the longer we live the older we get and the more health care we will use. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to have a policy of witholding care so people die young to save money. I guess there are some who might feel this is a good way to reduce the surplus population.