34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
News
McGovern backs public option Obama plan
Top Headlines The woman told him the only health insurance plan she could afford was one with a $15,000 deductible. When she broke her leg, the medical bills came to $10,000, which meant she was responsible for all the costs. She has fallen behind in her payments and now bill collectors are after her. "I have health insurance in name only," McGovern quoted her as saying. McGovern, D-Worcester, said it is examples like the store owner that convince him the current health insurance system is not working and needs reform. That is why, he said, he still would like to see a so-called public option included in any health care reform bill, even though some Democrats are backing away from it as too controversial. McGovern said the public option, or government-provided health insurance, would offer competition to private insurance companies, encouraging them to hold down costs, lower deductibles and cover preventative care. Controlling costs is critical, he said, because the United States spends more on health care than any other country and costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. No one would be forced into a government plan, he said. It would just be one more choice for the consumer. But, the public option plan has run into serious trouble on Capitol Hill. Republicans are opposed to it and some conservative and moderate Democrats are backing away from it. They said it would be too costly, would put private insurers out of business, and amounts to socialism. "The fact of the matter is, there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D, said Sunday. "There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort." The Obama administration gave conflicting signals over the weekend over whether it still supports the concept. Harry Gural, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Newton, said Frank is a strong supporter of the public option. Critics have said that it is unfair for members of Congress to create a public option, but not join it themselves. McGovern said if the public option provides a better deal for his family, he will join it. If his current Blue Cross plan is better, he will keep it. The whole idea, he said, is to give consumers more choice. The public option would not be mandatory and private plans would still be available. There have been proposals to have non-profit "co-ops" compete with insurance companies instead of a government option. McGovern said he does not know how that would work, but he would be willing to consider it. He said his bottom line is he wants "real reform," not lip service. A reform package must hold down costs, provide health care to currently uninsured people and emphasize preventative care, he said. Private insurers often do not cover preventative care because the big profits come from treating serious diseases, he said.
View Comments » 46 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
|
realist wrote on Aug 18, 2009 10:08 PM:
realist wrote on Aug 18, 2009 10:03 PM:
If pre-existing conditions are eliminated why would anyone buy insurance? They would call the insurance company on the way to the hospital if they felt sick and then cancel when the bill is paid. "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:34 PM:
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:32 PM:
Learn more:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:30 PM:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:29 PM:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:27 PM:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:26 PM:
http://www.healthreform.gov/
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html "
hardhearted wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:10 PM:
We will always have the truly needy and they should be taken care of but one health plan does not fit all and the goal of McGovern and other socialists seems to be to force that option on all of us. Margaret Thatcher said "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
BTW -- I would like to suggest that no one cite the number of uninsured without quoting their source. The number seems to go up about a million a week. "
stp wrote on Aug 18, 2009 6:36 PM:
As familyguy said, "We are already paying some of the highest prices in the world." One of the reasons is because 40+ million Americans do not have health insurance and use the ER as their sole means of healthcare. Their medical bills get paid by us already via taxes and high premiums.
The fact is that we need not only health insurance reform but healthcare reform.
Buying insurance accross state lines will drive up costs according to the experts (Prez of AARP, AMA, etc). Insurance companies won't even consider selling insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.
I say who cares about insurance company profits? Healthcare should be for all Americans and non-profit. Lets clean up the mess that Nixon started almost 40 years ago. "
attlegal wrote on Aug 18, 2009 6:23 PM:
DUH!
What's he doing in Maine anyway? isn't he paid to represent THIS AREA? "
ooap wrote on Aug 18, 2009 5:53 PM:
anavoter wrote on Aug 18, 2009 5:45 PM:
If they do...why no response to the ligitimate concerns and questions. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not care. He has his agenda and opinion and that is it. It does not matter what his constituents think.
I also find it interesting that the media (print and television) does not ask direct questions and demand direct answers either.
Its a sad state of affairs to say the least. Particularly in light of the importance of this issue. "
ooap wrote on Aug 18, 2009 4:55 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 4:46 PM:
Why won't the people we elected understand that we don't want to be convinced? "
anavoter wrote on Aug 18, 2009 4:19 PM:
Headline in today's Vancouver Newspaper:
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper.
We can do better. Put all Americans on the exact same plan that Congress has.
Works for me. "
drew wrote on Aug 18, 2009 3:58 PM:
smolina1000 wrote on Aug 18, 2009 3:19 PM:
1. That all of us get the SAME health care coverage as the congresscritters.
2. That no ILLEGAL ALLIEN is able to use it.
Note that in the Canadian version of socialized Health care, non citizens have to buy health care coverage. "
1333 wrote on Aug 18, 2009 3:12 PM:
Theyre only accustomed to finding new entitlements or bailing out big business.
The majority of Americans do not want this ridiculousness. What happened to
the majority rules? "
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 2:07 PM:
anavoter wrote on Aug 18, 2009 12:52 PM:
Read for yourself.
If national healtcare is so good why are Canadian docotrs looking to overhaul it?? Google it and find out.
Lets have a public option. Give everyone the same plan that our Senators and Congressmen have. Most of us would settle for this. We will take the McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy, Frank plan. Just what they have nothing more and nothing less. How does that sound?
Will Mr. McGovern be able to keep his Blue Cross Plan if it changes. Will we (non members of Congress) have the exact same option...no exceptions??
Straight forward questions. We want to come under the same plan and rules that Congress has. Seems fair to me. What say you Congressman? "
Southern View wrote on Aug 18, 2009 12:51 PM:
If the USA has the worst health system, why do all the people from all over the world who can get here, come to our country for their health care? And, if you think our country has such terrible health care, go to another country the next time you have a health problem.
Approx.70% of Americans are satisfied with their health care/insurance. Why are the Dems trying to throw this great system out? We all know why. They want to have control of our freedoms. They want to socialize this country. This is just another step in their game to seize total control. "
skeptic wrote on Aug 18, 2009 12:47 PM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 11:13 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 11:10 AM:
skeptic wrote on Aug 18, 2009 11:06 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 11:01 AM:
realist wrote on Aug 18, 2009 10:52 AM:
I did not know that Mr. McGovern represented Maine. With all due respect to our neighbors to the northeast, the opinions from the people in the state of Maine should not matter to McGovern. He is supposed to represent this district not anyone in the Pine Tree state. Does he have to travel all the way up there to find people who agree with him.
Let's face it, he is a communist who would like full government control of every aspect of our lives.
If the government must get involved, then allow co-operatives to form health insurance pools. This is something that can be done for any insurance except health insurance. Also, as s-plumb has said, pass tort reform. Limit the amount of money the ambulance chasers can collect (that will go over big with the lawyers in congress).
But the big reason health insurance keeps going up is that hospitals have no incentive to control costs.
As for the total number of uninsured, why does that number keep rising by about a million a week. Could someone who tracks these things show me how the stats are collected? "
familyguy wrote on Aug 18, 2009 10:43 AM:
Southern View wrote on Aug 18, 2009 10:26 AM:
Note: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until the government gets its hands on it. The only people who will see health care costs go down are illegal aliens and welfare losers. "
wxman wrote on Aug 18, 2009 9:15 AM:
Ok.. hypothetically..the public option is created, and since it's geared toward those who can't afford private insurance, undercuts private insurance costs by say 30% for similar coverage. Since it's gov't, it doesn't need to show a profit, and any losses will be absorbed by the deficit (ie taxpayers). Since the costs are less, many private insurance subscribers dump their HMOs and go with the Gov't plan. HMO's fail to show a profit and file Chapter 11, or worse, close completely, laying off thousands.
So now we have increased govt deficit, thousands out of work, and a govt monopoly on health insurance business.
and they wonder why we are against the public option. "
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:50 AM:
anavoter wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:44 AM:
6. HAVE YOU READ THE BILL?
7. Doesn't the bill prevent companies from making changes in thier private plans for 5 years? IF so, how can they change thier plans to compete and will this not force/encourage companies and workers/retirees to migrate to the government plan.
8. Lastly, why doesn't the congress provide the same plan it has for themselves to all of us.
9.Would you please publish on your website the times and locations of your town hall meetings before hand?
10 Will you please publish a list of frequently asked questions and concerns and provide specific answers in writing to educate and reduce the concerns that your consituents have?
Lastly, I believe most of your constituents wand some healthcare reform, but they don't want the government plan to end up forcing us to take it and destroying of denigrating the current healthcare plan we have. "
anavoter wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:35 AM:
I believe healthcare needs some reform. That being said, it is not clear to me that we need the sweeping changes outlined in the house bill.
Some questions for you:
1. Will you and other members of Congress fall 100% under the provisions of the healthcare bill you are crafting for us? No exceptions and exemptions.
2. What will happen to workers and retirees who get healthcare as a benefit when taxes are increased on companies (insurance and others) thus creating incentives to migrate folks from private company plans to the government plan. Or worse diensentives, discouraging companies from providing healthcare as a benefit?
3. Do you support a Universal Single Payer Government Controlled Plan?
4. How is this plan going to be paid for.
5. Will this plan result in cuts in services for the elderly? Obama says $500 billion. Where is coming from? "
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:33 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:28 AM:
Up to 20 million of the uninsured are here illegally,(Im guessing) and half of the remainder are at the age where they could care less. I would never choose to carry health insurance if I was 18-25, and had no responsibility. Why force a public option on them? "
IShouldBeMayor wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:27 AM:
You want to help government? Give us a 30% TAX FREE savings account we can use for anything. In time, Americans can learn to save again. If we put 30% of our pay into the savings account, you can tax the other 70%. No restrictions on what we use it for, its just a benefit for saving.
People could put down payments on houses, buy cars with money, and PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL BILLS WITHOUT INSURANCE! No insurance companies, doctors and hospitals can't charge as much, price goes down, quality of health care goes up. Everybody wins and the government can stay the heck out of our business. "
kevin h. wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:04 AM:
Get out of our lives, McGovernment! You moocher! "
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 8:04 AM:
mansfield dan wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:54 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:48 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:45 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:43 AM:
jorod03 wrote on Aug 18, 2009 7:27 AM:
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 5:13 AM:
1)Pass tort reform; taxpayer cost $0
2)Lift govt restrictions, so you can purchase insurance across state lines. This would force competition, resulting in downward pressure on costs. Taxpayer cost $0
3)For a 1 year period mandate that insurance companies accept those with pre-existing conditions. In the mean-time research permenent solutions. Taxpayer cost $0
Problem basically solved and readly implemented at the stroke of a pen with a cost $1 Trillion less than HR3200; the current proposal. "
s-plumb wrote on Aug 18, 2009 5:11 AM: