Question of the Day | 09/29/2009 1:00 am

Are you for or against allowing consumers to buy health-care insurance across state lines? (Why or why not?)

Joan Ganz Cooney | 09/28/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney's Stance on Buying Out-of-State Health Insurance

For. I don’t like monopolies.

4 Comments

Liz Smith | 09/28/2009 12:00 am

Liz Smith on Health Care: 'I'm for Public Option'

I am not sure about the specifics of this question, but I think yes, they should be able to cross state lines. Mainly, people need to be able to buy health care that isn’t just a direct benefit to the big insurance companies. I’m for Public Option.

21 Comments

Read more about: health care, Medicine, Money, Politics

110 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Poll: Support for Obamacare at New Low
Monday, September 28, 2009 12:20 PM

By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size

Only 41 percent of voters now support President Barack Obama and the Democrats’ healthcare reform proposal — down from 44 percent two weeks ago and the lowest level of support yet measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen’s nationwide telephone survey also found that 56 percent of voters are now opposed to the plan.

Just 33 percent of senior citizens favor the plan, while 59 percent are opposed.

By deber B on 09/29/2009 3:36 pm

e-mail alert

Of course senior citizens oppose the plan. First of all, the older a person gets the more likely they are to be afraid of change. Secondly, a larger percentage of the older folks are unable to do their independent research and thus bought into the whole "death panels!" hysteria. Thirdly, as senior citizens are able to access Medicare, and thus already have a public option, it is not in their best interest to extend (and in their minds) dilute this option by allowing the working poor and the young with pre-existing conditions in on the deal. It’s such a shame that this generation has so vehementally opposed something that would help so many people of my generation.

In any case, the polls are irrelevant. Once the plan is in place and life goes on as usual for the people who already have medical insurance, they’ll get over it.

By R.J.B. Reed on 09/30/2009 9:51 am

e-mail alert

I disagree, RJB, that the seniors believe the death panels clause exists. They are smarter than that. I’m a senior and I understand it. What is a shame is that this administration is unable to be a viable plan together that will suit all ages. We already know what the American do not want in this plan….the cost to cover abortions and the cost to cover the illegals.

By deber B on 09/30/2009 10:58 am

e-mail alert

And so you’re suggesting that in our xenophobia and in our religous mania, to punish a small portion of people we should let millions of americans go without health care. I’d prefer to believe that people are stupid, not evil. In any case, given the statements made at the town hall meeting, there were plenty of seniors who believed in death panels.

By R.J.B. Reed on 10/01/2009 6:59 am

e-mail alert

A little patronizing to use "matures," what? I will whack you with my walker, LOL. We are not so much afraid of change as we are of stupid or calculated change. I am sure you know perfectly well, many older people objected to an apparent mindset within the admin on the part of SOME of their advisers who. among other offbeat things, have said that one teen "equals" 15 older people. We better find that teen! It was a mindset—that the worth of people was actuarial and could be calculated when favoring or disfavoring certain tests or treatments—and that doctors should be paid for all the free legal counseling and may persauding they would be doing. But I digress—Yes, people who paid for decades into Medicare don’t want to see it evaporate because some lame pols spent the money out of the general fund. We also see that a choice between some plain vanilla federally run "company" or option (you would still pay) and forcing people into private cos on threat of fines or even jail when there is no cap on premiums might be a Hobson’s choice and even at that, will be paid out by cutting Medicare. It’s alllose-lose—that’s why it cuts in after these people leave or close to the time they leave. Then someone else can bellyache about what he or she inherited.

By Star Lawrence on 09/30/2009 12:15 pm

e-mail alert

Yes, it’s terrible when a person’s worth is calculated for determining their health care. And that is *exactly* the system we have right now. A poor person or a person with prior conditions is not considered "worth" enough to gain insurance and thus medical coverage.

To me, this "I’ve paid into medicare/Social Security and don’t want any of *my* money going to those poor people." is a perfect example of what is wrong in America today. What is best for us as a society? I already know that none of the money I’ve put into Social Security will come to me. And that’s fine, because I prefer to exist in a society where old people are taken care of. And I only wish that instead of say, "Gimme!" people would feel the same way.

By R.J.B. Reed on 10/01/2009 7:12 am

e-mail alert

I’ve paid into medicare/Social Security and don’t want any of *my* money going to those poor people." is a perfect example of what is wrong in America today.

I don’t think this is how people feel—no people I know do. We all give a few bucks when the Food Bank envelope comes—all we can afford. This whole notion that "rich" people sitting on Medicare are trying to make others suffer is ridiculous—at least in my opinion. People with Medicare, however, do feel they paid in for yrs (I used to cry sometimes writing that FICA check as a self-employed person, but always said—it’s for Mom, it’s for Mom). I am fighting against having this admin and of course any other coming along have control over health. I don’t like or trust or even understand these people or get any whiff of what they are up to.

By Star Lawrence on 10/01/2009 9:04 am

e-mail alert

Incidentally—since you are forced to pay for Medicare, I think you should get it when the time comes. This is a social contract—you are pretty sanguine about violation of social contracts. This isn’t just another dopey campaign promise—this is a national social contract. We hired these politicians to make all this work—for all these decades. They have failed us all and are failing once again. I have said all along, they need to regulate the insurance companies like the Medicare supplementals are regulated—every co’s Plan A has the same benefits as every other co’s Plan A. Plan B, same, etc. to I think Plan L. Most people buy Plan F. This way people could choose, as members of Cong do, a plan for their needs… There also needs to be a cap on premiums or all this is ridic—people will be priced out in 2 yrs if not sooner. Costs need to be walked back to actual cost plus a profit. Not these ridic inflated prices…no MRI costs anyone $1500. None of these things are suggested because so many fixes are in no one even knows what they are anymore.

By Star Lawrence on 10/01/2009 9:11 am

e-mail alert

I think I, like every other person in this country, should get a reasonable amount of medical care when I need it. How much I’ve paid into whatever program is completely irrelevant when it comes to this basic human rights issue. In my opinion, the social contract that is being violated by allowing people to die or become bankrupt is much more basic than whether the amount I get from medicare (or whatever) is fair when compared to the amount I pay.

By R.J.B. Reed on 10/01/2009 9:26 am

e-mail alert

No, the elderly are worried because they should be. They are about to lose Millons in Medicare advantage while AARP uses Medigap to make billions. What a racket.

If a public plan is passed, illegals and the millions that are forced off of the private plans will to many for this system to handle. Right now, there is a doctor shortage, with the graduating numbers still declining. It won’t take but a few years for rationing to kick into high gear. That is the ‘death panel" talk. If you do not "qualify" for a procedure, you may die. Hence, death panels.

You are dreaming if American are going to get over the facts that they have spoken and that this government is ignoring the will of the people. You are dreaming if you think polls are irrelevant. There is an easy way to provide for those that do not have care, a total government take over is not it.

Just wait until the young "get in on the deal", boy will they be mad! They will be forced to enroll and accept what the government says they should have. The costs will kill them long before any disease will, and they will be furious.

By Eyes Open on 10/02/2009 12:46 am

e-mail alert

Completely free markets do not work when we’re talking about issues of individual rights. A completely free market leads to monopolies, as done in the past. Or quasi-monopolies, as we see with the current insurance industry. They know that if they all behave equally poorly, they will earn quite a bit of money as the people they screw over often don’t live long enough to really object, or they are too poor to do so.

Removing the state barrier will make the competion a little stronger for young healthy people with jobs that allow them to obtain health care. It will in no way improve things for those who have prior conditions or do not have employment that allows them to access health care. There is no financial benefit to it. But, as a suposedly civilized first world country, we owe all our citizens basic health care.

By R.J.B. Reed on 09/29/2009 2:07 pm

e-mail alert

R.J.B. thank you, well said!

By Mel Berg on 09/29/2009 2:25 pm

e-mail alert

I do not believe that our citizens are owed health care, or TV or a car, or a pair of Nikes.

By Eyes Open on 10/02/2009 12:50 am

e-mail alert

RJB, you keep referring to healthcare as a right…while it is very humane to want everyone to have the same healthcare options, this isn’t a "right". Should everyone have access to a reasonable premium? That would be great. The simple fact is that those who are ABLE must work for this (as in earn it…it isn’t a right). Obviously, there are those that are unable to work for various reasons and from a ideological standpoint, these folks should be taken care of. However, in the current economy, those of us left working cannot shoulder the burden of taking care of everyone, whether we want to or not. We have basic expenses and families, it comes down to simple math…there isn’t enough money available from the average American to fund this. Opening up the free market by removing the state barrier will be a huge step forward in resolving this issue. I think this needs to be done immediately and give it a chance to work before we rush into anything else. This is a multi-headed monster and a step-wise approach to slaying it is best.

By STACY SEARS on 10/04/2009 6:37 am

e-mail alert

If health care isn’t a right, then life isn’t a right. This is something more basic than a person’s right to their property, or to marry or even to privacy. And in point of fact, those of us who are working *can* take care of everyone. We’d simply prefer to have ipods, laptops, fancy vacations, and eat out thrice a week instead.

By R.J.B. Reed on 10/04/2009 6:55 am