US: Trump Voters Fear Health Insurance Loss

US Heads for Civil War Over Health Insurance
Tea Party Patriots demonstrate against healthcare reform. Photo: The Telegraph
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOGS – JANET DALEY: The Battle of Obama’s Healthcare is looking to go down in history as a major confrontation between the power of federal government and the self-determination of individual states. And that eternal tension between what used to be called state’s rights and the coercive inclinations of federal authority has been at the heart of the most momentous struggles in national history – not least the civil war which tested the strength of the Union to breaking point.

Barack Obama’s health reforms have been challenged by a startlingly successful rebellion in Missouri. A state ballot referendum on Proposition C which prohibited federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance or from penalising them if they did not, was carried by a majority of 71 per cent. (Making health insurance compulsory is one of the fundamental tenets of Obamacare.) The actual constitutional basis for this challenge may seem technical in British terms: it centres on the point that there should be no federal compulsion forcing people to engage in inter-state commerce (ie buying things across state lines). Read on and comment >>> Janet Daley | Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Insurers Push Plans Limiting Patient Choice of Doctors
THE NEW YORK TIMES: As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices. >>> Reed Abelson | Saturday, July 17, 2010

Socialized medicine begins here! Consider this the start of the dismantlement of the old system of medicine provision in the States. By the end, the patient’s opinion will matter far less than the doctor’s. The state will control your healthcare and the management thereof. This is the price Americans will pay for being taken in by a smooth talker! – © Mark

Foreign Workers May Need Private Health Care to Work in UK
THE TELEGRAPH: Foreign workers face having to use private health care if they want to work in the UK to ease the social pressure of immigration, the Home Secretary has signalled.

Employers wanting to bring in migrants would have to provide them with private health insurance to avoid placing any "undue burden" on the NHS, under the proposals.

It came as Theresa May said the planned annual cap on migrants will be based on the impact they have on public services and communities as well as economic need.

The Coalition Government has pledged to bring net migration down to the "tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands" and a limit of foreign workers from outside the EU is a key part of that move. >>> Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor | Monday, June 28, 2010

A Health Insurance Model America Cannot Afford to Ignore
THE BOSTON GLOBE: MASSACHUSETTS isn't the first place to mandate that everyone buy insurance as a way to achieve universal health coverage, and it isn't the first to get queasy about seeing through that solution.

Like Americans, the Swiss were not eager to accept the double principles of universal coverage and a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance. It took almost a century and political debates as contentious as those in the Massachusetts Legislature before these two elements were added to the Swiss system in 1996.

What made a very reluctant Swiss population finally accept (by a small majority of 52 percent) such a fundamental change? Prior to the individual mandate, insurers were largely unregulated and could reject older people or those in poor health or charge them very high premiums. As a result, lifetime coverage was uncertain and health insurance was increasingly unaffordable for people with low incomes.

The goals of the Swiss reforms sound familiar to Massachusetts: Cover everyone, make insurance more affordable for low and moderate income people, and control health care costs. The individual mandate was combined with insurance market reforms that require Swiss insurers to offer a standardized, comprehensive benefit package defined by the federal government. Individuals can choose from products that have different deductibles (ranging from $240 to $2,050), and they have the right to change health insurers every year. Federal subsidies are available to low and moderate income people to make coverage more affordable.

Eleven years later, Switzerland has achieved its goal of universal coverage: Everyone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care. The Swiss example on health insurance reform (more) By Béatrice Schaad Noble

Mark Alexander