Most of us have admitted we need to help people with the cost of health care. It is how, how much, who, and when we simply don't agree on...
As far as it goes, I would actually have no problem with a single-payer option that could be run like Tri-care FOR LIFE, which is very similar to a PPO or an HMO. But for those of you who think it is anything like Medicare, think again. They are so far apart it is ridiculous. Unfortunately, a system like Medicare is probably what we are going to get, with all the issues that go with it, because that kind of bureaucracy is what they produce best. .
Also, if we could expect EVERYONE to pull their weight and to pay premiums *even if you are poor* it could work. It doesn't have to be a lot...it wouldn't take a lot. Even those of us with good plans pay $100 a month...Even poor people can have an annual premium taken from their EIC each year and can be expected to pay for Urgent care, ER, office visits and prescriptions. This would prevent abuse of the system where people clog the ER's just to see a doctor. If people were expected to make adult decisions concerning their health, make appointments, and to pay for it, they would feel more empowered. The rest of the people would not feel abused and would probably be more understanding.
This would solve the issue of COBRA coverage when unemployed. And leave the seniors alone.
It should not be compulsory!! (see payment below) The only reason this rule is on the table is so they can foot the bill for everyone else. That is what is wrong with the system NOW...there are too many people on SS and not enough paying into it. We should get away from those expectations. If the government wants to get into the healthcare business, they need to take a page from the insurance industry and do it right.(You might laugh, but if it wasn't true, why would Aetna be in the business??) If a person opts out, they pay their own way...no bail outs.
All of this being said....what we are going to end up with is a plan that will cost us all an arm and a leg (figuratively and literally) which will require at least $1000 deductible and still only pay 80% of the bill....it will be the "worst" plan we see come open enrollment time. It will not resemble anything like what people are expecting.
How do we pay for it? We certainly DON'T unfairly tax certain people to pay for other people. We institute a ONE CENT sales tax across the board. Everyone buys things...No one gets a rebate. Even those who opt out will contribute, because someday they will need the coverage.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Just because we manage to insure everyone with health care does not mean we have preserved the quality of health care.
If the salaries of doctors is limited, we will lose a lot of docrtors. Doctors spend years and fortunmes for their education, and the governm,emt's restriction on their salaries wit=ll keep peo0ple out of the field.
Coverning everyone will necessitate additional doctors and health care facilities. More people will vist i=the doctors and we will run into the same problems that other countries with universal health care have.
IMO a better solution is to let the free market with real competition work. Let someone other than government do the reforming.
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
Just because we manage to insure everyone with health care does not mean we have preserved the quality of health care.
Nothing is going to change the quality, and frankly I don't think one conversation has anything to do with the other....
If the salaries of doctors is limited, we will lose a lot of docrtors. Doctors spend years and fortunmes for their education, and the governm,emt's restriction on their salaries wit=ll keep peo0ple out of the field.
That could very well be, but like I said the other night...even the guy who graduated LAST in the class is called doctor. They will still be wealthy...and if a person becomes a doctor..a GOOD doctor, he could get much of his education paid for.
Coverning everyone will necessitate additional doctors and health care facilities. More people will vist i=the doctors and we will run into the same problems that other countries with universal health care have.
We already cover everyone, they are illegals, people with no insurance, and they go to the ER. When we make them provide a co-pay to go, they will stay home. And I am only proposing a choice...not an entire system..
IMO a better solution is to let the free market with real competition work. Let someone other than government do the reforming.
Having the government option will promote competition.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
IMO a better solution is to let the free market with real competition work. Let someone other than government do the reforming.
We have hints of how the free market has worked in financial markets. Without some regulations the profit motivation kicks into overdrive and often ethics and retraint are lost.
And nothing but nothing is keeping reform from taking place now. No one is forcing the insurance companies to cut benefits when people start costing them too much of their profits. No one forces the insurance companies to institute pre-existing condition clauses.
They take these positions to enhance profits and they aren't likely to do away with them voluntarily.
IMO a better solution is to let the free market with real competition work. Let someone other than government do the reforming.
We have hints of how the free market has worked in financial markets. Without some regulations the profit motivation kicks into overdrive and often ethics and retraint are lost.
There is no free market operating in the health care system. People walk in get the cre they need and the insurance companies receive the bill. that is noit feree market.
And the world economies operate on the profit motive. Even those socialist, commu7nist, and every dictatorship as well a those jungle societies that don't use money. Each persoin is trying to get ahead and better him/herself because self interes is the motive of every individual who has not been beaten down by his masters.
And nothing but nothing is keeping reform from taking place now. No one is forcing the insurance companies to cut benefits when people start costing them too much of their profits.
Do you really believe [profits are the cause of hig costs? Do you have any documentation for that assertion?
No one forces the insurance companies to institute pre-existing condition clauses.
And no one is forcing government to decide that everyone should be insured. Should everyone be insured? Well, yes if the agenda iws to have the government be in control of your health care? We see what happens when the government is in control of banking. They force banks to make loans to people who cannot afford homes. But the blind refuse that argument.
They take these positions to enhance profits and they aren't likely to do away with them voluntarily.
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
As far as it goes, I would actually have no problem with a single-payer option that could be run like Tri-care FOR LIFE, which is very similar to a PPO or an HMO.
Interesting ... now if two people so far apart on the political spectrum as we are can agree on that, why is it impossible for the political class in Washington to even consider the idea?
The free market will not reform the system because there is no free market in healthcare. The patient does not pay, and even if they did are you really in a position to negotiate chemotherapy when you've just been diagnosed with cancer? Are you going to haggle the price of your daughter's emergency appendectomy? Be serious! There's no free market, and it is pretty difficult to create one. Obama's argument of a public option is to force the free market to be competitive on the insurance, rather than the healthcare side.
There is no way you are going to insure 46 million other people without increasing costs, so the only debate is who pays for it and how. Tax the rich, a national sales tax, government borrows the money etc. No free lunch folks and all these "big savings" Obama keeps talking about will never be realized. Defensive medicine is not just done for litigation it is often profitable for the doctors who order the tests. BTW, Tort reform won't be on the agenda because trial lawyers are big contributors to Democrats.
You want to pass a law that forces insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions? No problem. Just don't look surprised when everyone's health insurance goes up incrementally. Force Aetna to take the cancer patient who will cost them $600K on a $15K/year premium and that $585K will just get spread to the other rate payers. Again, no free lunch.
BTW, I'm against a public option. I've been to the DMV and dealt with my town's planning/zoning dept, wetlands department, etc. Not a chance I want those jackasses managing my healthcare!
There is no way you are going to insure 46 million other people without increasing costs, so the only debate is who pays for it and how.
You're saying that the per-capita cost of healthcare in this country is just inherently 1.5 to 2 times higher than anywhere else and there's nothing that can ever be done about that? Why?
The free market will not reform the system because there is no free market in healthcare. The patient does not pay, and even if they did are you really in a position to negotiate chemotherapy when you've just been diagnosed with cancer? Are you going to haggle the price of your daughter's emergency appendectomy? Be serious! There's no free market, and it is pretty difficult to create one. Obama's argument of a public option is to force the free market to be competitive on the insurance, rather than the healthcare side.
That is an excellent point, and that is why I think a public option is okay, because it will give them something to compete with. Otherwise, the insurance companies are competing only with themselves. I don't look at the public option as a "bar" or a mandate...just an indication of where it could be. I am a firm believer in the market, but in a market where the consumer is not the one making the choices, it simply can't work.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Open the borders, so to speak, and allow every insurance company in the nation to compete for the *national* health care market. Devise regulations that allow people of some common interest to form groups. "The Texas Resident Group" for example. That's a *huge* number that any insurance company would love to sign! Okay, what's your best price? Or go the other way! Why not a "Wal-Mart" of insurance? A huge company with a jillion outlets that offers insurance at big discounts because they can arm-twist doctors and hospitals with their giant subscriber collective! The sell generic prescription medications for $4.00 a month for God's sake! Can that same dynamic not be applied to a blood test, or an annual physical? Why is *basic* health care any different from big-screen TVs?
Pre-existing condition coverage at standard rates is absurd.
The free market will not reform the system because there is no free market in healthcare. The patient does not pay, and even if they did are you really in a position to negotiate chemotherapy when you've just been diagnosed with cancer? Are you going to haggle the price of your daughter's emergency appendectomy? Be serious! There's no free market, and it is pretty difficult to create one. Obama's argument of a public option is to force the free market to be competitive on the insurance, rather than the healthcare side.
That is an excellent point, and that is why I think a public option is okay, because it will give them something to compete with. Otherwise, the insurance companies are competing only with themselves. I don't look at the public option as a "bar" or a mandate...just an indication of where it could be. I am a firm believer in the market, but in a market where the consumer is not the one making the choices, it simply can't work.
A public option for the military seems to work. Even the VA appears to muddle along. How many people is that? OTOH, Medicare covers *only* those over 65. That is a significantly greater number of people, and Medicare is several jillion dollars in the red! So what happens when we create a public option agency that is designed to cover *everybody* that wants it? Everything about it will be a nightmare! The costs, the quality of service, rationing, beurocracy, ineptitude, fraud, waste, you name it! Nothing really changes, except the *size*, but gheezuz, look at the size!
The free market will not reform the system because there is no free market in healthcare. The patient does not pay, and even if they did are you really in a position to negotiate chemotherapy when you've just been diagnosed with cancer?
Au contraire reila. The people who have no health insurance DO "pay" out of their own pockets.
Au contraire reila. The people who have no health insurance DO "pay" out of their own pockets.
Exactly, Janie and if everyone paid out of his/.her own pocket, the free market would operate and the prices would come down
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
That is a friggin' lie. Of course they don't, that is part of the problem.
Jim..
ASs I have said many times, people are in business to make money. That means if they have people who do not pay thier bills, they will charge more to those who do pay their bills.
Amnd in the business where there is fraud and theft, someone makes up for that fraud and theft. Therefore, those who can afford to pay are the ones who get stuck with the payments. Fraud, theft, weaste, and poverty are all in the same mold.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae prove the point. Perople who cannot afford houses should not be sold houses. But people whop cannot afford health care are often given health care by doctors, druggists, hospitals and many caring people.
And when one considers the government paying the bills, they must collect txes from people who have the moneyh. And if they can't sell their bonds and notes, they just print the money anyway.
The future belongs to those who prepare for it, and you better bet that those in charge havce so little wisdom, we will need to prepare very well.
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
One of the reasons that I am against having a single payer system is that when ever you get the Government involved, it usually costs twice as much for half the service.
No, Jan, I don't believe we are stuck with rapidly rising healthcare costs, but I see nothing in the Obama model that reduces those costs. Adding 46 million more people into the mix isn't going to end up costing us less, it will be more, lots more. So again, how do we pay for it.
Sorry Janie, but insured people don't pay and uninsured sick people are either in no position to negotiate, or they aren't going to pay anyway. Yes, there are those who get bankrupted due to serious illness and no insurance, but this isn't the majority. If everyone is insured (that is the topic after all) then your issue goes away. We still have the issue of who pays and how though.
A little anecdote about the problem with healthcare. I went to an allergist (I have severe allegies since birth and have had all sorts of shots etc for years) because my hayfever symptoms grew worse over the years and wanted to discuss treatments. The doctor prescribed a nose spray and a daily pill (which incidentally resolved my issues). While examining my nose he found a polyp in my upper nostril which apparently had been there for years. He said I should get a CAT scan to check my sinuses for polyps. When I asked why he said that if I had more than a couple they would surgically remove them. I asked about the dangers of keeping them there (could they become cancerous?). No problems keeping them there. I told him no way would I have surgery for something that: a) caused me no problems; and b) couldn't develop into a larger problem in the future. He said fine, but that I should still get a CAT scan. I refused.
The moral here is that was not defensive medicine on his part as there were no issues one way or the other. Why was he so insistent on the test? Is it because it is possible he feels obligated? Does he profit from the test? This would have cost me nothing by the way. I'm not sure what they cost but $1000 is probably a good estimate. My insurance company should thank me with a $200 gift card, no? (Note the lack of market forces in this transaction!)
Another anecdote. The prescriptions for each month came to $140 which I paid $35 copay. I recently changed insurance status (changed jobs and became a depedent on my wife's policy) which was the same as the original policy (same company/same plan). Due to screw up on my birthdate when I went to pick the prescriptions the pharmacy said the insurance was denied. I said no problem figuring I'd pay the $140, straighten out the mess with insurance and get the $105 later. When I went to pay the pharmacy said it was $270!!! Obviously CVS makes money on the $140, but they gouge the uninsured an extra $130. Ugly!
For those thinking you just don't provide service to those who don't pay, you're dreaming. Do we really want to be a nation that watches a 3 year old die from Appendicitis because her father didn't buy insurance and he doesn't have the $8,000 for the operation? Not going to happen!
If you think that "If you pay then there will be a free market", again you are in position to negotiate on healthcare. Sure, maybe routine crap like blood test etc but when you have a serious illness or emergency you want the best care available and screw the price. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
If you want to insure everyone explain how to pay for it. Obama is full of it when he talks about savings due to scale. Nothing in his plan addresses that. Tort reform won't put a dent in the cost (Malpractice from soup to nuts: insurance, lawyer's fees and settlements/awards amount to 2% of healthcare). I have no problem with including Tort reform in the package, but you're kidding yourself if you think it matters a whole lot.
If you think that "If you pay then there will be a free market", again you are in position to negotiate on healthcare. Sure, maybe routine crap like blood test etc but when you have a serious illness or emergency you want the best care available and screw the price. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
All I am doing is thinking out loud of the possibilites. Why can't this "Wal-Mart Insurance" offer a variety of coverages covering a whole scale of costs? Why would the policy that *you* buy, be any different from the policy that your employer buys? Or does that remove the burden of your *own* responsibility, and free you to piss and moan about your insurance?(I mean "you" in the general sense, not you personally) Why couldn't you and your family doctor get together and decide which coverage to buy based on his recommendations? All of this can be folded into, and around whatever govt. benefits you may qualify for, such as VA. There are a dozen different ways to finance a dozen different options when you decide to buy a car. These options are available because they *exist*. Why on earth can't the same system be created for insurance?
If you buy your own insurance there are a range of plans from which to choose. I did this as someone self employed a few years ago. I had a decent policy with a high deductible ($2,000) for around $800/month for the family (now close to $1,000). The problem isn't choice and being able to get a policy for lots of people. It is a problem of price. Many can't afford the $12K/year.
You seem to imply (sorry if I got this wrong from your post) that by having such a system the costs drop. Well, there is such a system and it costs what it costs. So again, how do you introduce the free market here. There is one for insurance, more or less, so that's not the issue. I had a dozen policies to choose from. There are expensive because healthcare is expensive and growing by double digits a year. How do you control those costs? Again, malpractice reform gets you very little (2% if you eliminate everything from insurance costs to legal fees to settlements/awards). You need to have a consumer who says "What????! $1500 for a mamogram!!! I'll give you $100 for the 5 minutes it takes". Of course that isn't going to happen if your insurance company is paying all but $10 of it anyway. And that's for preventative care. How well will it work for a serious illness.....even worse.
Therein lies the problem. A nasty one with no good solutions which is why there's handwringing in Washington. You can insure everyone but it will cost the earth.
If you buy your own insurance there are a range of plans from which to choose. I did this as someone self employed a few years ago. I had a decent policy with a high deductible ($2,000) for around $800/month for the family (now close to $1,000). The problem isn't choice and being able to get a policy for lots of people. It is a problem of price. Many can't afford the $12K/year.
No kidding, I'm one of them! Sure, a market exists for Rolls Royce cars too. This doesn't mean much to people who drive Chevys.
You seem to imply (sorry if I got this wrong from your post) that by having such a system the costs drop. Well, there is such a system and it costs what it costs. So again, how do you introduce the free market here. There is one for insurance, more or less, so that's not the issue. I had a dozen policies to choose from. There are expensive because healthcare is expensive and growing by double digits a year. How do you control those costs? Again, malpractice reform gets you very little (2% if you eliminate everything from insurance costs to legal fees to settlements/awards). You need to have a consumer who says "What????! $1500 for a mamogram!!! I'll give you $100 for the 5 minutes it takes". Of course that isn't going to happen if your insurance company is paying all but $10 of it anyway. And that's for preventative care. How well will it work for a serious illness.....even worse.
Yes, to a degree, the cost of insurance is bound by the cost of medicine, but not entirely. Two things: One, there is *not* an open insurance market. There is a patchwork quilt of federal and state laws that regulate the markets of insurance companies. Open up the nation to a *single* market, in which *all* insurance companies compete for *all* the customers, and prices *will* come down.
Two: Yes, insurance pays the doctors, and the set-up is exactly backwards. So if the doctor tries to charge $1500 for a mamogram, the *insurance company* says "No way, we can't charge our subscribers enough to cover that!". So who else is going to pay doctors for mamograms? Who else is going to pay insurance companies for health care policies? Who then sets the costs? The *people* do, by refusing to allow this collusion between insurance, and doctors!
The other problem is that doctors can charge $1500 for a mamogram in exactly the same way that a defense contractor can charge $500 for a hammer! The frigging government! Because they have no oversight, and because they do what they do so *badly*, those dumb bastards just pay whatever anybody charges them! What the hell? It isn't *their* money! Well, what do you think the percentage is of *expensive* constant-care that is to be found in those over 65, and covered by Medicare? It's *huge*! So how can an insurance company with *us* as it's customers, have any control over medical prices, when the doctor just says "Screw you, I'm making millions with my oldies and their Medicare?! So to a large degree, it's *government* that is playing a significant role in the inflated, and ever-increasing costs of health care! Imagine that...
Doctors dropping out because they're afraid they won't make a fortune?
Gee, I wonder why people even became doctors back in the old days when they were paid in chickens and corn? I guess money isn't the be-all/end-all for everybody.
***********************
I don't know if dead fish go with the
flow or not, but I knew they stink. Try
to avoid becoming one.
Doctors dropping out because they're afraid they won't make a fortune?
Gee, I wonder why people even became doctors back in the old days when they were paid in chickens and corn? I guess money isn't the be-all/end-all for everybody.
Doctors in the old days didn't endure years and years of expensive pre-med, med-school, internship, and residency. They also didn't do 1/10th of the intensive proceedures that doctors are now all but *required* to do as a matter of routine. For sure they consider it a "calling", or they wouldn't go through all that to begin with. But it is *not* unreasonable for them to expect to be very well paid for what they do. I do *not* want my surgeon all pissed off because his government check was a big disappointment!
But the insurance policy I describes is hardly the rolls royce. Even catastrophic care, one with a $10K deductible and doesn't cover preventive care, for a healthy young person has got to be four thousand a year. I had such a policy when I was in my mid twenties (circa 1988) and it costs $120/month. I gotta believe it is significantly more.
The insurance company will negotiate a discounted rate for a mammogram, but in the end they really only care about the difference between medical costs and insurance premiums which is why they are happy to both let it rise by double digits per year. (Which you nicely addressed above). However, how do you propose injecting the consumer between these two to create a truly free market? If you think a patient is in any way, shape or form in a position to negotiate pricing when they or their loved one is sick, you're crazy. Not going to happen. Unlike most consumer areas, the consumer has no leverage here.
I dispute your suggestion that the cause is too little competition in the insurance industry. I had 15 plans to choose from with a single broker. I'm sure I could have doubled the choices if need be. I'm all for creating a single market and eliminating any regulations that are hampering competition, but I think you won't see much difference there. This isn't the gas, water or electric company where you are forced into a single choice.
Which brings up an interesting comparison. You'll note that the consumer has no choice of water, eletric (limited choice is happening now for source, but not distribution) or natural gas. Guess what? The government needs to set the rate there. I'm not advocating price control here, but if there's truly no market force, i.e. there is no free market, then how do you manage pricing?
I believe if we are going to have a universal healthcare model, regardless of its form (public, private, hybrid) I think rates should be different for people with different risks and risk profiles. You want to eat every meal at McDonalds until your 400 pounds, no problem, don't make me pay extra for your triple bypass you know is coming. Want to smoke 3 packs a day? Ditto. No seat belts, helmets, etc. No problem. Just pay for the extra risk you take.
Much of the healthcare costs in this country is caused by selfish behavior of individuals who expect those who make healthy choices pay for their hedonism. If you're a conservative and this strikes you the wrong way (which would be out of character!) then just picture your health premiums going to Michael Moore.
If you're a liberal....well.....you probably won't buy into my plan.......I'm betting...
But the insurance policy I describes is hardly the rolls royce. Even catastrophic care, one with a $10K deductible and doesn't cover preventive care, for a healthy young person has got to be four thousand a year. I had such a policy when I was in my mid twenties (circa 1988) and it costs $120/month. I gotta believe it is significantly more.
I have to think that the generic pill I get at Wally retails for at least $20-$25, if not a lot more. Yet they can sell it for $4.00. Now how can they do that, and why can't the same dynamics be applied to insurance? I don't think the government has a thing to do with it, BTW, other than the quality of the pill itself.
The insurance company will negotiate a discounted rate for a mammogram, but in the end they really only care about the difference between medical costs and insurance premiums which is why they are happy to both let it rise by double digits per year. (Which you nicely addressed above). However, how do you propose injecting the consumer between these two to create a truly free market? If you think a patient is in any way, shape or form in a position to negotiate pricing when they or their loved one is sick, you're crazy. Not going to happen. Unlike most consumer areas, the consumer has no leverage here.
We don't negotiate for car insurance from the middle of a wreck. I see no reason why a healthy 25 year old can't cut his best deal for health care, with plenty of leverage, and then spend the rest of his life with it, adjusting the costs and coverage as he goes through changes. It doesn't have to be tied to his job, and it doesn't have to depend on where he lives, or moves to. It's easy enough to regulate contract stipulations that keep both parties honest, it's done all the time.
I see these constant TV ads for "Progressive" insurance? I assume that they are a clearing house for people seeking insurance, and they find them the best deal for their particular circumstances? Why couldn't they handle health insurance as well?
I dispute your suggestion that the cause is too little competition in the insurance industry. I had 15 plans to choose from with a single broker. I'm sure I could have doubled the choices if need be. I'm all for creating a single market and eliminating any regulations that are hampering competition, but I think you won't see much difference there. This isn't the gas, water or electric company where you are forced into a single choice.
States vary. A lady from California on TV claimed she had six to choose from. How many new and used car dealerships are within a 50 mi. radius of where you live? Another question. How do you think Wal-Mart got as huge as they did? Had they been restricted to a 3-state area around Arkansas, do you think they would have? What did Bill Gates do that any other geek in the right place at the right time couldn't have? Examples are everywhere of the *unlimited* potential of free-market competition. The first PCs cost how much?
Which brings up an interesting comparison. You'll note that the consumer has no choice of water, eletric (limited choice is happening now for source, but not distribution) or natural gas. Guess what? The government needs to set the rate there. I'm not advocating price control here, but if there's truly no market force, i.e. there is no free market, then how do you manage pricing?
I agree. We need one, precisely because of the absence of the other. But then look at the history of cable TV. They had the same thing going, and then along came the miniature satelite dish, and then *they* formed networks, and the whole game changed, pricing and all. Some technologies are already making inroads into electric service, with self-contained solar systems, etc. Soon enough, we will have *choices* there too, and that's the key! With health insurance, the game is too rigged as it is. I suppose it's human nature to think Uncle Sugar can to fix it, by simply ending the game, and taking it over. That's exactly the *wrong* way to go. Give the *consumer* more and more *choices*, and no underhanded collusion can put the squeeze on them!
I believe if we are going to have a universal healthcare model, regardless of its form (public, private, hybrid) I think rates should be different for people with different risks and risk profiles. You want to eat every meal at McDonalds until your 400 pounds, no problem, don't make me pay extra for your triple bypass you know is coming. Want to smoke 3 packs a day? Ditto. No seat belts, helmets, etc. No problem. Just pay for the extra risk you take.
Just for fun, call your car insurance agent, and ask what your premiums will be compared to now, if you go out and buy a Corvette? Then tell them that you're 19 years old, or that you have had 3 speeding tickets and two wrecks in the last year. Car insurance does this as a matter of course all the time. No reason to think health insurance should be any different.
Much of the healthcare costs in this country is caused by selfish behavior of individuals who expect those who make healthy choices pay for their hedonism. If you're a conservative and this strikes you the wrong way (which would be out of character!) then just picture your health premiums going to Michael Moore.
The only caution I would have is against these clean-living food-nazis having too much influence, and trotting out volumes of unproven claims, or junk-science to try and validate themselves. All insurance companies need is another excuse to justify higher premiums.
Doctors dropping out because they're afraid they won't make a fortune?
About 50-75% of all doctors go into medicine these days just to become rich....and I've heard that directly from the horse's mouth (medical students all over the country, AND the fact that not nearly enough doctors go into Family Practice because it doesn't PAY well enough for them). It's sad but true.
One of the reasons that I am against having a single payer system is that when ever you get the Government involved, it usually costs twice as much for half the service.
In what kind of government medical program do you take part? My husband is on Medicare and also has an AARP supplemantal, and his total expenses are far less than when he was working, and he gets excellent service.
This message has been edited by pphhrogg on Sep 22, 2009 5:00 PM
Au contraire reila. The people who have no health insurance DO "pay" out of their own pockets.
The subject was people who are buying insurance ..not the ones who are not.
My comment was for REILA...not for you, miss buttinski. We can ALL see that you are merely OBSESSED with me and simply "must" comment on my every post lately. How neurotic can you be?
Those med students are stupid. They get paid squat compared to finance dudes and I gotta think a business degree + MBA is a shitload easier than pre-med + Medical School + Internship + Residency! Right motivation, wrong choice?
Gus, I guess we agree to disagree on the level of competitiveness for insurance companies. However, I'm all for making it as competitive as possible so we agree on that direction and associated actions, if not the end result.
On the anology to car insurance. You pay variable rates based on your choices and behavior. Yes, junk science food nazis and the what not are issues that need to be managed, but there's some pretty good science out there on a number of topics. People pay for their own choices.....
I'm all for your portable policy idea, i.e. you get a policy and carry it with you decoupling from companies. Sounds great, and lets pay with pre-tax dollars too!
....but doctors who specialize become millionaires quite quickly. When was the last time you went to a specialist and then actually looked at your itemized bill? Most people never see their bills.....their insurance companies do.
fiscon summed up the entire debate in one sentence
September 22 2009, 5:48 PM
One of the reasons that I am against having a single payer system is that when ever you get the Government involved, it usually costs twice as much for half the service.
the govt NEVER does anything efficiently
NEVER
the record is clear
everything the govt touches is more expensive and less efficient
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
If you buy your own insurance there are a range of plans from which to choose. I did this as someone self employed a few years ago. I had a decent policy with a high deductible ($2,000) for around $800/month for the family (now close to $1,000). The problem isn't choice and being able to get a policy for lots of people. It is a problem of price. Many can't afford the $12K/year.
Geez...all you are doing at that price is putting an operation on lay-away.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
We really should outsource the military and intelligence gathering.
Most of it has been outsourced....Most bases do not have hospitals, so you go to civilian doctors... there are civilians at many of the base gates....even base housing has "property managers" these days....it's not "your father's" military.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
Riela:
(Login riela) Healthcare IS Different September 22 2009, 11:14 AM
"If you want to insure everyone explain how to pay for it. Obama is full of it when he talks about savings due to scale. Nothing in his plan addresses that. Tort reform won't put a dent in the cost (Malpractice from soup to nuts: insurance, lawyer's fees and settlements/awards amount to 2% of healthcare). I have no problem with including Tort reform in the package, but you're kidding yourself if you think it matters a whole lot."
But tort reform would take the pressure off the doctor's who order every test imaginable for fear of being sued. Tort reform is very important to any health care system and until this admin. addresses that it shows they are more concerned in helping their contributors then they are getting health care passed. I agree with many of the other things you've said. Very reasoned and informative.
But tort reform would take the pressure off the doctor's who order every test imaginable for fear of being sued.
The doctors who are actually getting sued IN COURT most likely deserve those suits. Hardly any malpractice suits make it to court, and they are NOT "frivolous" suits.
Tell me, evelyn, how would YOU like to have the WRONG leg cut off? I worked in a hospital where that happened. Or how would you like to have to go BACK to surgery because some moron of a doctor left an instrument inside of you? I also worked in another hospital where THAT happened, and both hospitals are well-known LARGE teaching hospitals. Neither of those lawsuits should be limited to a mere $250,000...because they are examples of malpractice at its worst. Also, what about the WRONGFUL DEATH issues....where a MD malpractice cost a person his/her LIFE? Do you think YOUR life is only worth $250,000?
The people who are injured or DIE due to some moron of a doctor's idiotic malpractice should NOT have to sue the doctor, all the nurses, the lab techs, the respiratory techs, the pharmacist, the Xray techs, AND the hos[ital (and anyone else who even touched that patient at all), but they will if tort reform is passed nationally, and they will GET whatever they sue for, too......but it will tie up the courts for MUCH longer than a single lawsuit would.
If doctors don't want to get sued for malpracitce, then they should NOT make life-threatening mistakes.....PERIOD.
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
