My analysis of the Healthcare situation.

[Liberator21]

It DOES mean less. Not because they are not as "valuable," but because there are reasons that many of this 46 million are not covered, when in fact they could be.

I'm not trying to trivialize young people, I am one lol! I make $30K per year as a college student (I'm 25) and don't carry health insurance. I could afford it if I really was determined, and it would be nowhere near 15K for me and two dependents. And yes, tinkering is all that is needed. When nearly 70% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, we don't need to scrap the system and start over. Brilliant!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: deputc26
Obama?s plan for universal healthcare follows a model that is difficult to argue with. Give vital medical care to anyone who needs it. This is an admirable goal and aims to meet a genuine need that nearly everyone can identify with.

I do disagree with your premise. We live in a world with infinite needs and scarce resources. Why should "vital medical care for anyone who needs it" in the United States take precedence over say, feeding the starving in Africa? Or trying to prevent genocide in Darfur? When you use the brute force of government to pursue goals like universal healthcare, you're taking away some of the means of private individuals to address the problems that are important to *them* on the questionable assumption that universal healthcare (or whatever other program) is the highest, best use for that money.

Your statements are just absurd.....
the answer to yourt question is simple because they are Americans!
We don`t throw our people under the bus to that starving african children can have a meal.......thats just plain idiotic to think that Americans have to do without medical care because some shild is starving elsewhere in this world!

if you as an individual want to not seek medical attention if you need it because people are hungry in Africa that is your buisness. But don`t even talk about tasking care of others before we take care of the citizens of the US!!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Liberator21
It DOES mean less. Not because they are not as "valuable," but because there are reasons that many of this 46 million are not covered, when in fact they could be.

I'm not trying to trivialize young people, I am one lol! I make $30K per year as a college student (I'm 25) and don't carry health insurance. I could afford it if I really was determined, and it would be nowhere near 15K for me and two dependents. And yes, tinkering is all that is needed. When nearly 70% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, we don't need to scrap the system and start over. Brilliant!

Again, if health insurance is designed so that dropping coverage or refusing to pay is HOW THEY MAKE MONEY, then the whole system needs to be scrapped.

And no, the "reasons" you used are nonsensical assumptions and stereotypes about the groups, completely ignoring how many get outright denied, can't afford it(huge part of the problem), or get exempted a billion pre-existing conditions.

The whole "70% are satisfied" ignores the rest of that one survey. Here is some more from that same survey.

"Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied."

"That stability is somewhat at odds with other recent trends in the poll. For example, of the roughly 6 in 10 Americans who have private health insurance plans, a shrinking number report that that their employers pay their full premiums. In 2001, 24% said their employers paid the full premium; now, just 15% do. During that time, there has been an increase in the percentage saying the premiums are shared between themselves and their employers."

"Also, among those who pay some or all of their healthcare premiums, a majority have consistently said they are paying more for their healthcare than they did a year ago. In the latest poll, 26% say their costs have gone up "a lot" in the past year, and 43% say "a little.""

Additionally, 30% of the "70%" surveyed are MEDICARE/medicaid covered!

Sorry, but when 30% of the country are unsatisfied and you add that to 20% that are satisfied with Medicare(public option), that adds to 50% in need of help(since medicare is government help).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Liberator21
It DOES mean less. Not because they are not as "valuable," but because there are reasons that many of this 46 million are not covered, when in fact they could be.

I'm not trying to trivialize young people, I am one lol! I make $30K per year as a college student (I'm 25) and don't carry health insurance. I could afford it if I really was determined, and it would be nowhere near 15K for me and two dependents. And yes, tinkering is all that is needed. When nearly 70% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, we don't need to scrap the system and start over. Brilliant!

Again, if health insurance is designed so that dropping coverage or refusing to pay is HOW THEY MAKE MONEY, then the whole system needs to be scrapped.

Absolute rubbish. Reform could accomplish the same thing WITHOUT scrapping the entire system.

The whole "70% are satisfied" ignores the rest of that one survey. Here is some more from that same survey.

"Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied."

I posted this weeks ago, during your "costs aren't important/don't matter" tirade. Convenient that you now use that as a point of your argument, isn't it?

"That stability is somewhat at odds with other recent trends in the poll. For example, of the roughly 6 in 10 Americans who have private health insurance plans, a shrinking number report that that their employers pay their full premiums. In 2001, 24% said their employers paid the full premium; now, just 15% do. During that time, there has been an increase in the percentage saying the premiums are shared between themselves and their employers."

Ok, I am not sure I see a point here -- people are having to pay a larger share of their premiums. So? This isn't exactly a state secret. How would a government plan prevent that? Answer -- it won't. Please don't resort to "the government plan will cost less," because as the CBO reported, it will not in its current incarnation.

"Also, among those who pay some or all of their healthcare premiums, a majority have consistently said they are paying more for their healthcare than they did a year ago. In the latest poll, 26% say their costs have gone up "a lot" in the past year, and 43% say "a little.""

Hmmmm, that pesky rising costs thing rears its ugly head again, which has been my argument all along and the CBO states the current plan will do nothing to address it.

Additionally, 30% of the "70%" surveyed are MEDICARE/medicaid covered!

Sorry, but when 30% of the country are unsatisfied and you add that to 20% that are satisfied with Medicare(public option), that adds to 50% in need of help(since medicare is government help).

Please provide a link, as I am interested in reading more.

No one has answered my question yet, after repeated attempts. If Medicare is the answer, why not extend it to the uninsured and then pass legislation preventing insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping people for being "too expensive"?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Liberator21
It DOES mean less. Not because they are not as "valuable," but because there are reasons that many of this 46 million are not covered, when in fact they could be.

I'm not trying to trivialize young people, I am one lol! I make $30K per year as a college student (I'm 25) and don't carry health insurance. I could afford it if I really was determined, and it would be nowhere near 15K for me and two dependents. And yes, tinkering is all that is needed. When nearly 70% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, we don't need to scrap the system and start over. Brilliant!

Again, if health insurance is designed so that dropping coverage or refusing to pay is HOW THEY MAKE MONEY, then the whole system needs to be scrapped.

Absolute rubbish. Reform could accomplish the same thing WITHOUT scrapping the entire system.

The whole "70% are satisfied" ignores the rest of that one survey. Here is some more from that same survey.

"Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied."

I posted this weeks ago, during your "costs aren't important/don't matter" tirade. Convenient that you now use that as a point of your argument, isn't it?

"That stability is somewhat at odds with other recent trends in the poll. For example, of the roughly 6 in 10 Americans who have private health insurance plans, a shrinking number report that that their employers pay their full premiums. In 2001, 24% said their employers paid the full premium; now, just 15% do. During that time, there has been an increase in the percentage saying the premiums are shared between themselves and their employers."

Ok, I am not sure I see a point here -- people are having to pay a larger share of their premiums. So? This isn't exactly a state secret. How would a government plan prevent that? Answer -- it won't. Please don't resort to "the government plan will cost less," because as the CBO reported, it will not in its current incarnation.

"Also, among those who pay some or all of their healthcare premiums, a majority have consistently said they are paying more for their healthcare than they did a year ago. In the latest poll, 26% say their costs have gone up "a lot" in the past year, and 43% say "a little.""

Hmmmm, that pesky rising costs thing rears its ugly head again, which has been my argument all along and the CBO states the current plan will do nothing to address it.

Additionally, 30% of the "70%" surveyed are MEDICARE/medicaid covered!

Sorry, but when 30% of the country are unsatisfied and you add that to 20% that are satisfied with Medicare(public option), that adds to 50% in need of help(since medicare is government help).

Please provide a link, as I am interested in reading more.

No one has answered my question yet, after repeated attempts. If Medicare is the answer, why not extend it to the uninsured and then pass legislation preventing insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping people for being "too expensive"?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102...-own-healthcare.aspx#2

Giving the public option is pretty close to extending medicare and the other 2 are covered in the bill.


"Absolute rubbish. Reform could accomplish the same thing WITHOUT scrapping the entire system."

You provide no reasoning, just an assertion.

If the whole system is designed to make profit by denying care etc.. why WOULDN'T it need to be scrapped.

Name ONE benefit of having health insurance companies over a government option that eliminates all the abuses of the healthcare companies. If they played fair instead of denying cancer patients for previous acne, this all wouldn't be an issue. When you require businesses to be moral and have integrity, it will never work. They only care about their bottom line.

Go read the transcript of the Cigna interview.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: blanghorst

"Absolute rubbish. Reform could accomplish the same thing WITHOUT scrapping the entire system."

You provide no reasoning, just an assertion.

I have provided reasoning in many threads; as a matter-of-fact, I linked to that same Gallup article in a previous thread. To summarize my viewpoint, pass laws stating that insurance can't drop people who "cost too much" and prevent them from using pre-existing conditions as a way to deny coverage or refuse payment. If they don't like the laws -- well, they can go into another line of business for all I care. Many industries are regulated and this is an industry that needs more regulation.

Name ONE benefit of having health insurance companies over a government option that eliminates all the abuses of the healthcare companies. If they played fair instead of denying cancer patients for previous acne, this all wouldn't be an issue. When you require businesses to be moral and have integrity, it will never work. They only care about their bottom line.

Or we can say "If you want to be in this industry, there are new rules to follow. If you don't like these rules, you can go into another industry." At any rate, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree, as it probably comes down to philosophy. I do not want the government in the health care business and intruding even more in my life.

Go read the transcript of the Cigna interview.

Yeah, I intend to do so.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Perhaps the problem in the US is that the federal government is too involved in this new healthcare proposal.

Here in Canada, healthcare is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

Nice post, deputc26. :beer:

I agree.

I propose this be left up to the states.

The Massachusetts plan doesn't bother me too much. The insurers are still private, but the government subsidizes the plans for people who don't make enough money. And everyone is required to have a plan.

I have an OK plan because I work, but those who don't still get a basic plan to cover them in emergencies and sick visits.

There are other options in my mind to this too:

- Make more happen in primary care.
- Make daily sick visits done by Nurse Practitioners
- Make insurance options that cover you in emergencies only more popular.

Few others...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Perhaps the problem in the US is that the federal government is too involved in this new healthcare proposal.

Here in Canada, healthcare is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

Nice post, deputc26. :beer:

I agree.

I propose this be left up to the states.

The Massachusetts plan doesn't bother me too much. The insurers are still private, but the government subsidizes the plans for people who don't make enough money. And everyone is required to have a plan.

I have an OK plan because I work, but those who don't still get a basic plan to cover them in emergencies and sick visits.

There are other options in my mind to this too:

- Make more happen in primary care.
- Make daily sick visits done by Nurse Practitioners
- Make insurance options that cover you in emergencies only more popular.

Few others...

Most states already HAVE a "public option" though.....

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: blanghorst

"Absolute rubbish. Reform could accomplish the same thing WITHOUT scrapping the entire system."

You provide no reasoning, just an assertion.

I have provided reasoning in many threads; as a matter-of-fact, I linked to that same Gallup article in a previous thread. To summarize my viewpoint, pass laws stating that insurance can't drop people who "cost too much" and prevent them from using pre-existing conditions as a way to deny coverage or refuse payment. If they don't like the laws -- well, they can go into another line of business for all I care. Many industries are regulated and this is an industry that needs more regulation.

Name ONE benefit of having health insurance companies over a government option that eliminates all the abuses of the healthcare companies. If they played fair instead of denying cancer patients for previous acne, this all wouldn't be an issue. When you require businesses to be moral and have integrity, it will never work. They only care about their bottom line.

Or we can say "If you want to be in this industry, there are new rules to follow. If you don't like these rules, you can go into another industry." At any rate, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree, as it probably comes down to philosophy. I do not want the government in the health care business and intruding even more in my life.

Go read the transcript of the Cigna interview.

Yeah, I intend to do so.

The other problem is that, as you will see from the Cigna interview, they raise prices astronomical to get people they don't want to cover to drop their coverage. This would also need to be eliminated.

Government intrusion was needed to free slaves, allow women to vote, help civil rights along, allow interracial marriage, help the disabled/veterans, add a public education system, post office, police, fire, etc.

I don't understand the irrational fear of government when you have health insurance profits going through the roof and they are canceling cancer patient coverage because of acne!!! How could it possibly be worse? Every other civilized country covers everyone...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Perhaps the problem in the US is that the federal government is too involved in this new healthcare proposal.

Here in Canada, healthcare is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

Nice post, deputc26. :beer:

I agree.

I propose this be left up to the states.

The Massachusetts plan doesn't bother me too much. The insurers are still private, but the government subsidizes the plans for people who don't make enough money. And everyone is required to have a plan.

I have an OK plan because I work, but those who don't still get a basic plan to cover them in emergencies and sick visits.

There are other options in my mind to this too:

- Make more happen in primary care.
- Make daily sick visits done by Nurse Practitioners
- Make insurance options that cover you in emergencies only more popular.

Few others...

Most states already HAVE a "public option" though.....

Not really.. unless you consider $1300 a month a public option.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

The other problem is that, as you will see from the Cigna interview, they raise prices astronomical to get people they don't want to cover to drop their coverage. This would also need to be eliminated.

Something has to be done to reduce the rate of cost increases. No one disagrees with that assessment. I am just not sure what should be done.

Government intrusion was needed to free slaves, allow women to vote, help civil rights along, allow interracial marriage, help the disabled/veterans, add a public education system, post office, police, fire, etc.

Government "intrusion" is one thing; government ownership is another. Admittedly, I should have phrased it differently.

I don't understand the irrational fear of government when you have health insurance profits going through the roof and they are canceling cancer patient coverage because of acne!!! How could it possibly be worse? Every other civilized country covers everyone...

It isn't an irrational fear. I don't want the government "taking care of me." I want them to butt out and let me provide for myself and my family. And even putting aside that philosophical difference, I frankly don't trust the government to put together a cost effective, well managed plan that won't sharply increase the deficit.

I know many cancer patients who were not dropped from their insurance, including my father who eventually died from it. Regardless, I do advocate eliminating those kinds of loopholes so with respect to that particular argument, you are preaching to the choir.

 

[GTKeeper]

I think the toughest pill that people need to swallow in order for the U.S to go from 16-17% of GDP to 8-10% of GDP is to go to a single payer system. Its a simple fact that countries that use such a system have their administrative costs cut to 1-2% instead of what we have here in the U.S. 400 billion dollars a year are spent on just administering the health care system.

Now before people start bashing themselves too much, I can only relate my own experience here.

I work for a small company (about 50 employees) and we have health insurance issues EVERY single year. Our premiums go up every year with this year being an astounding 25% increase. Now, our median age is about 33 (we are a young company) but our bills keep piling up. The reason for this, is that the insurance company treats our 50 employees a single pool that needs to subsidize itself through premium increases whenever someone uses some extra care. It just so happened we had 3 people have babies and that is the justification for the increase. I find this absolutely ridiculous.

What I don't understand, is why are people so opposed to a public option alongside a private option. I mean if you want high quality care you receive today, please continue to pay your high premiums and the private insurer will give you your care. Now if you don't want to pay those premiums, you can opt-in to the 'public option'. I don't see how this is being fought so hard. The whole argument that the quality of care will go down (which what, we are 30 something in the world in that category) is bogus, because the argument given of (I want my awesome care I have today, and I will pay for it) should remain true as long as people are willing to pay the premiums.

With all that being said, if people really oppose a single payer, public option systems here are some other ideas.

1. Stop tying insurance to your employer, anyone should be able to buy insurance from any insurance pool.
2. Have insurance companies list a price list for procedures and how much they cost, so that people actually have a FREAKING choice when choosing health care.
3. Force everyone to buy insurance, we do it for cars, why not for health.

Those 3 things will drive down costs without too much upfront expenditure. If people don't like ANY of these options, well you can continue to watch your premiums go up as the number of uninsured goes up and america becomes less healthy from year to year and the number of health problems increase.

 

[deputc26]

Shadow thank you for your contributions you are actually a great example. You cannot get health insurance because of the insurance company's morally deplorable "make money not healthy people" modus operandi. This is a travesty but I would like to point out that regardless of which path we take there will always be people like you, choosing one option for healthcare will always mean other options disappear even in a completely socialized system. It is impossible to create a completely closed system.

Liberator thanks for keeping things under control but I have to disagree with this statement: "tinkering is all that is needed" we have been tinkering for forty years to no avail. I believe your own sig provides evidence of why settling for a system that is at least 70% less efficient than possible is not desirable. Also, the vast majority of 18-30 yr olds are saving themselves a lot of money; really for them it is a question of the acceptability of risk with 95% coming out ahead and 5% getting burned.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Liberator21
Also, while most of your post is very concise and well thought out, I do believe you need to define this so called assumption of "give VITAL medical care to anyone who needs it." Because in a way we already do - the ER. I understand you probably are referring to a working healthcare system. I just believe you need to clarify.

Also, one must consider would this really give it to all who need it? And Without partisan FUD, what happens if rationing takes effect?

No, the ER is not that place. Hospitals in Detroit are starting to turn away frequent flyers who have no insurance from using the ER as their PCP. When people start losing their health care jobs because of all the free care we are giving out the time to stop this practice is yesterday.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Perhaps the problem in the US is that the federal government is too involved in this new healthcare proposal.

Here in Canada, healthcare is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

Nice post, deputc26. :beer:

I agree.

I propose this be left up to the states.

The Massachusetts plan doesn't bother me too much. The insurers are still private, but the government subsidizes the plans for people who don't make enough money. And everyone is required to have a plan.

I have an OK plan because I work, but those who don't still get a basic plan to cover them in emergencies and sick visits.

There are other options in my mind to this too:

- Make more happen in primary care.
- Make daily sick visits done by Nurse Practitioners
- Make insurance options that cover you in emergencies only more popular.

Few others...

Most states already HAVE a "public option" though.....

Not really.. unless you consider $1300 a month a public option.

Youre out of your mind. Ive used 2 states pooled plan and it cost less than $50/mo, pre-existing condition covered. I posted a link to all the states pooled plans in another thread. Youre talking out of your ass.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: glenn1Why should "vital medical care for anyone who needs it" in the United States take precedence over say, feeding the starving in Africa? Or trying to prevent genocide in Darfur?

...Because the purpose of the United States government should be to protect and to pursue the rational selfish interest of the American people and not the welfare of people in other nations.

When you use the brute force of government to pursue goals like universal healthcare, you're taking away some of the means of private individuals to address the problems that are important to *them* on the questionable assumption that universal healthcare (or whatever other program) is the highest, best use for that money.[/quote]

It's in the rational selfish interest of those private individuals to have national healthcare because they may need it one day. They are potential users of the system even if they are too myopic and pigheaded to realize it. Also, they will not have to live with the fear or losing their health insurance or of having it rescinded when they need it. They'll also get to enjoy the benefits to the nation's overall economy.

Also, under true socialized medicine or some variant of national health care, they would have MORE money to spend on charitable causes because as of right now we are spending a much higher percentage of our nation's GDP (about 17%) than any other first world nation, including those with socialized medicine.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: davestarThere is already more rationing going on in the US than in other industrialized countries. However, our rationing is performed by insurance companies with the aim of maximizing profits (regardless of health outcomes) and their rationing is performed by medical boards with the aim of getting care to those in most need. sure, some elective surgeries will have long wait times in Canada, but is that the end of the world?

Excellent point. I will try to remember it and start incorporating it in my arguments. I've already been raising people's awareness of the existence of Death Panels at private insurance companies, but I'm going to start pointing out the there is rationing, too.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Liberator21I'm not trying to trivialize young people, I am one lol! I make $30K per year as a college student (I'm 25) and don't carry health insurance. I could afford it if I really was determined, and it would be nowhere near 15K for me and two dependents. And yes, tinkering is all that is needed. When nearly 70% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage, we don't need to scrap the system and start over. Brilliant!

Don't fuck yourself; you really should go get yourself at least some form of catastrophic health insurance. It seems like a big waste of money--until you really need it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9Name ONE benefit of having health insurance companies over a government option that eliminates all the abuses of the healthcare companies. If they played fair instead of denying cancer patients for previous acne, this all wouldn't be an issue. When you require businesses to be moral and have integrity, it will never work. They only care about their bottom line.

One benefit...Insurance company executives, Pharmaceutical executives, and Hospital executives help keep the yacht-building industry alive. Could you imagine what kind of an effect it would have on our nation's economy if they could no longer afford to purchase five new yachts every year and had to settle for a mere one new yacht per year?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: blanghorstI have provided reasoning in many threads; as a matter-of-fact, I linked to that same Gallup article in a previous thread. To summarize my viewpoint, pass laws stating that insurance can't drop people who "cost too much" and prevent them from using pre-existing conditions as a way to deny coverage or refuse payment. If they don't like the laws -- well, they can go into another line of business for all I care. Many industries are regulated and this is an industry that needs more regulation.

How does that address the fact that the U.S. spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on health insurance while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured and with tens of millions more living in fear of losing their jobs and thus their insurance while other nations spend a far smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance while having 100% coverage?

The only solution to this problem is to cut out the middleman (socialized medicine) or force them to be more efficient and regulate their prices (some models used in other nations).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think the toughest pill that people need to swallow in order for the U.S to go from 16-17% of GDP to 8-10% of GDP is to go to a single payer system. Its a simple fact that countries that use such a system have their administrative costs cut to 1-2% instead of what we have here in the U.S. 400 billion dollars a year are spent on just administering the health care system.

What's sad is that those advocating for health insurance reform failed to get this message out. It should have been everywhere. Every single discussion of it should have reiterated this point continuously. It's an argument that the free market dogmatists cannot address.

 

[Xellos2099]

Union work, that's the problem.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blanghorstI have provided reasoning in many threads; as a matter-of-fact, I linked to that same Gallup article in a previous thread. To summarize my viewpoint, pass laws stating that insurance can't drop people who "cost too much" and prevent them from using pre-existing conditions as a way to deny coverage or refuse payment. If they don't like the laws -- well, they can go into another line of business for all I care. Many industries are regulated and this is an industry that needs more regulation.

How does that address the fact that the U.S. spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on health insurance while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured and with tens of millions more living in fear of losing their jobs and thus their insurance while other nations spend a far smaller percentage of their GDP on health insurance while having 100% coverage?

The only solution to this problem is to cut out the middleman (socialized medicine) or force them to be more efficient and regulate their prices (some models used in other nations).

I agree with your second plan -- regulation and enforced efficiencies, which would also need to include measurable results in terms of cost reductions. Additionally, eliminate loopholes like denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and dropping people who are deemed "too expensive."

There was an article on CNN last week or the week before which showed a study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers which showed the top six sources of waste in our current system. Off the top of my head, two of the biggest sources of waste were inefficient use of IT and excessive tests. If you eliminate/greatly reduce those six caterogies of waste, you're now down to spending comparable to other industrialized nations. IIRC, the waste amounted to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent on health care every year. I linked the article in another post here in the forums, but I am too lazy to go search for it at the moment.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

The other problem is that, as you will see from the Cigna interview, they raise prices astronomical to get people they don't want to cover to drop their coverage. This would also need to be eliminated.

Something has to be done to reduce the rate of cost increases. No one disagrees with that assessment. I am just not sure what should be done.

Government intrusion was needed to free slaves, allow women to vote, help civil rights along, allow interracial marriage, help the disabled/veterans, add a public education system, post office, police, fire, etc.

Government "intrusion" is one thing; government ownership is another. Admittedly, I should have phrased it differently.

I don't understand the irrational fear of government when you have health insurance profits going through the roof and they are canceling cancer patient coverage because of acne!!! How could it possibly be worse? Every other civilized country covers everyone...

It isn't an irrational fear. I don't want the government "taking care of me." I want them to butt out and let me provide for myself and my family. And even putting aside that philosophical difference, I frankly don't trust the government to put together a cost effective, well managed plan that won't sharply increase the deficit.

I know many cancer patients who were not dropped from their insurance, including my father who eventually died from it. Regardless, I do advocate eliminating those kinds of loopholes so with respect to that particular argument, you are preaching to the choir.

I think you misunderstood one of my points. Read the Cigna transcript. They purposely raise people astronomically to get them to drop coverage. They single people out that are high risk or are too expensive to do this. I am not referring to the general increase.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Perhaps the problem in the US is that the federal government is too involved in this new healthcare proposal.

Here in Canada, healthcare is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government.

Nice post, deputc26. :beer:

I agree.

I propose this be left up to the states.

The Massachusetts plan doesn't bother me too much. The insurers are still private, but the government subsidizes the plans for people who don't make enough money. And everyone is required to have a plan.

I have an OK plan because I work, but those who don't still get a basic plan to cover them in emergencies and sick visits.

There are other options in my mind to this too:

- Make more happen in primary care.
- Make daily sick visits done by Nurse Practitioners
- Make insurance options that cover you in emergencies only more popular.

Few others...

Most states already HAVE a "public option" though.....

Not really.. unless you consider $1300 a month a public option.

Youre out of your mind. Ive used 2 states pooled plan and it cost less than $50/mo, pre-existing condition covered. I posted a link to all the states pooled plans in another thread. Youre talking out of your ass.

In Florida, that is what we were looking at.