Patrick intensifies state's push to curb soaring health premiums

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

I would like them to just start with food. It's embarrassing being the most powerful country in the world and when I go to Boston and San Francisco the streets were lined with homeless asking for cash when all the other western countries I've been to don't have this problem.

 

[gingermeggs]

Japan and Switzerland have the most efficient health systems in the world, both have caps on private insurance charges and have a minimum cover requirement, both give government provided care to the unemployed. Also there are caps on the costs of medical procedures- set rates for any given surgical procedure and gp consultations. The Usa has the highest cost/procedure in the world, some Americans now go to Cuba for surgery, due to cost and quality/cost.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

Which is all the more reason it would fail here.

"We" are not "Them". You cant say it works in some foreign country with a completely different culture and mindset and expect it will fit equally well here. One could also argue that since they think theres witches in Africa that they must also exist here too..... or perahps because Israel requires military service it should be required here too.

Simply saying "Well they do it there" is a poor poor justification for wanting it full force here. I dont know of any state that actually has a successful UHC type program. That alone speaks volumes about how a UHC type program would operate on a larger level.

Please 'they' do it for reason - more along the lines they pay half per capita as we do AND cover everyone. It's certainly worth attention just from a bottom line perspective.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

Elaborate on why is it "cheaper"?



Edit:To re-phrase

The reason why I didn't elaborate is that this has been discussed to death on here. Not to be a jerk, but there are about 104982352 threads that discuss exactly why it is cheaper on here already.

Then there are 104982352 threads which come to the wrong conclusion. Medicaid is obscenely expensive and we're supposed to believe that the same people who are in office who support that fiasco will magically do better.

How about how they took years to implement HIPPA, and that created so much mandated bureaucracy that any hypothetical savings will take decades to recoup if ever?

As one working in health care I get to see first hand what screw ups the state and federal programs are. While there are a great many problems with private insurance, I worry about what happens when the same politicians that brought us the Bridge to Nowhere and Iraq take over health care. Make no mistake it will not be health care workers or consumer advocacy groups which will craft and implement UHC. It will be done with an eye for political concerns and pork by people who haven't the slightest idea. There are countless threads about how one party or another screwed something up, yet I'm supposed to believe that the same people will be good stewards of one of the most important programs that could possibly exist? No, I don't buy it. MA isn't an aberration, it's the future of health care if(when?) government runs it.

I can live with UHC in some form, but the liberal faith in it is equivalent to the conservative faith in the premise of Iraq. Both sides want their pet so badly that they will find any argument for it.

I agree with you powerful interests will screw it up in this country. Only way it could work is if we translated Taiwan's or Japans exactly and implemented.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

I would like them to just start with food. It's embarrassing being the most powerful country in the world and when I go to Boston and San Francisco the streets were lined with homeless asking for cash when all the other western countries I've been to don't have this problem.

What streets in Boston are lined with the homeless begging for food and money?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

I would like them to just start with food. It's embarrassing being the most powerful country in the world and when I go to Boston and San Francisco the streets were lined with homeless asking for cash when all the other western countries I've been to don't have this problem.

What streets in Boston are lined with the homeless begging for food and money?

I was on the waterfront in 07 when i saw them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh Winnar.

Even if Massachusetts completely screws up their healthcare there are numerous examples worldwide of socialized medicine being the absolute best form of health care available that we know of. It provides the most health for the least money.

I would like them to just start with food. It's embarrassing being the most powerful country in the world and when I go to Boston and San Francisco the streets were lined with homeless asking for cash when all the other western countries I've been to don't have this problem.

What streets in Boston are lined with the homeless begging for food and money?

I was on the waterfront in 07 when i saw them.

Interesting, I've been here for 6 years and I've only seen a few and they were mostly winos and the mentally ill. Boston definately isn't the place to be if you're homeless during the Winter.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...aring_health_premiums/

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accelerated his administration's efforts to control spiraling statewide healthcare costs, warning that rising premiums threaten to crush families and businesses and doom Massachusetts' groundbreaking experiment with universal insurance.

Patrick said officials are considering using state insurance regulations to block excessive healthcare premiums. He is also summoning leaders of insurance and hospital companies for meetings as soon as this week to ask for their "vigorous cooperation."

In response to stories by the Globe's Spotlight Team about the role of Partners HealthCare and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massa chusetts in driving up costs, Patrick convened a panel of senior administration figures yesterday to coordinate new and existing state cost containment efforts, which he said should produce action by summer. He also said he expects to file new legislation.

"The increases at this rate over time [are] just not sustainable, not for families, not to business, not for government," Patrick said at a news conference after the summit.

Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan also said he wants providers and insurers to delay signing new contracts until the administration has implemented new, as-yet-undetermined policies to limit premiums.

The Spotlight Team has reported, quoting officials directly involved in the negotiations, that the leaders of Partners and Blue Cross made a deal in 2000 in which Blue Cross significantly boosted its payments to Partners in exchange for Partners' insistence that all other insurers pay at least as much for the care of their members by Partners doctors. That prevented insurance companies from competing on price, and helped to drive up consumer prices statewide. Individual insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen nearly 9 percent a year since 2000, twice the annual rate increase of the late 1990s.

The Spotlight Team has also reported that Partners hospitals are paid significantly more than other, comparable facilities.

Partners and Blue Cross say they did nothing improper. Both companies contend that payments to hospitals had been too low before the 2000 agreement, and Partners said its CEO promised only to treat all insurers equally.

Both companies also said yesterday that they look forward to participating in Patrick's discussions. Partners spokesman Rich Copp said in a statement that cost increases nationally "have been mirrored almost exactly" in Massachusetts. He also noted that Partners' latest contract with Blue Cross, settled over the summer, "resulted in rate increases well below those experienced in prior years." The contract calls for increases in payments of about 5 to 6 percent a year, roughly equivalent to medical inflation.

Blue Cross CEO Cleve L. Killingsworth Jr. expressed support in a statement for one proposal the administration is considering: reforming the payment system to compensate hospitals for patient outcomes, rather than for the number of procedures or visits.



So these imbeciles pass outrageous mandates driving up the cost of insurance, make everyone purchase this insurance, have the government go bankrupt buying this expensive insurance, and then blames the insurance companies after the fact.

Can we call this experiment a failure yet?

Remove the insurance companies and make it socialized medicine, and costs would go down. We pay about 5-10 times what the English pay for healthcare, money which is mostly going to insurance companies and their overpriced CEOs. Have you checked the salary and perks of BC's CEO?

Health insurance companies are a relic of our cave days. Time to move on.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...aring_health_premiums/

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accelerated his administration's efforts to control spiraling statewide healthcare costs, warning that rising premiums threaten to crush families and businesses and doom Massachusetts' groundbreaking experiment with universal insurance.

Patrick said officials are considering using state insurance regulations to block excessive healthcare premiums. He is also summoning leaders of insurance and hospital companies for meetings as soon as this week to ask for their "vigorous cooperation."

In response to stories by the Globe's Spotlight Team about the role of Partners HealthCare and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massa chusetts in driving up costs, Patrick convened a panel of senior administration figures yesterday to coordinate new and existing state cost containment efforts, which he said should produce action by summer. He also said he expects to file new legislation.

"The increases at this rate over time [are] just not sustainable, not for families, not to business, not for government," Patrick said at a news conference after the summit.

Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan also said he wants providers and insurers to delay signing new contracts until the administration has implemented new, as-yet-undetermined policies to limit premiums.

The Spotlight Team has reported, quoting officials directly involved in the negotiations, that the leaders of Partners and Blue Cross made a deal in 2000 in which Blue Cross significantly boosted its payments to Partners in exchange for Partners' insistence that all other insurers pay at least as much for the care of their members by Partners doctors. That prevented insurance companies from competing on price, and helped to drive up consumer prices statewide. Individual insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen nearly 9 percent a year since 2000, twice the annual rate increase of the late 1990s.

The Spotlight Team has also reported that Partners hospitals are paid significantly more than other, comparable facilities.

Partners and Blue Cross say they did nothing improper. Both companies contend that payments to hospitals had been too low before the 2000 agreement, and Partners said its CEO promised only to treat all insurers equally.

Both companies also said yesterday that they look forward to participating in Patrick's discussions. Partners spokesman Rich Copp said in a statement that cost increases nationally "have been mirrored almost exactly" in Massachusetts. He also noted that Partners' latest contract with Blue Cross, settled over the summer, "resulted in rate increases well below those experienced in prior years." The contract calls for increases in payments of about 5 to 6 percent a year, roughly equivalent to medical inflation.

Blue Cross CEO Cleve L. Killingsworth Jr. expressed support in a statement for one proposal the administration is considering: reforming the payment system to compensate hospitals for patient outcomes, rather than for the number of procedures or visits.



So these imbeciles pass outrageous mandates driving up the cost of insurance, make everyone purchase this insurance, have the government go bankrupt buying this expensive insurance, and then blames the insurance companies after the fact.

Can we call this experiment a failure yet?

Remove the insurance companies and make it socialized medicine, and costs would go down. We pay about 5-10 times what the English pay for healthcare, money which is mostly going to insurance companies and their overpriced CEOs. Have you checked the salary and perks of BC's CEO?

Health insurance companies are a relic of our cave days. Time to move on.

-Robert

So should car insurance and home owners insurance be socialized too - wouldn't costs go down according to the (failed) logic of the socialized insurance pushers? How about life insurance? and other INSURANCES?

 

[fleshconsumed]

There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

Nope - no difference. Car INSURANCE is for when something damages your car - not when it needs routine maintenence. Health INSURANCE is the same way...except that people have mixed healthcare in with health INSURANCE so now it pays for your oil changes, tire rotations, etc.... and then people wonder why the hell INSURANCE is so expensive. Allow INSURANCE to go back to being INSURANCE instead of a catchall pool so other people can pick up your tab for your oil change.

 

[Zebo]

Hows logic failed CAD? Every country with UHC pays a fraction of what we pay. Take a look at this video.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...orld/etc/synopsis.html

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

Nope - no difference. Car INSURANCE is for when something damages your car - not when it needs routine maintenence. Health INSURANCE is the same way...except that people have mixed healthcare in with health INSURANCE so now it pays for your oil changes, tire rotations, etc.... and then people wonder why the hell INSURANCE is so expensive. Allow INSURANCE to go back to being INSURANCE instead of a catchall pool so other people can pick up your tab for your oil change.

I think you missed his point entirely. People have a set limit for how much they will pay to protect their car, but that limit disappears when talking about their life. Also increasing the opportunity cost for routine maintenance on our bodies in pretty dumb considering that leads to higher costs down the line. Also your analogy is flawed because if we took it literally that means you only want health insurance to cover accidents and not cancer or heart attacks or anything, because those would be equivalent to your car breaking down and not be covered by car insurance.

Come to think of it you sound really dumb overall in this post.. I'm beginning to think you're 12 years old.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: babylon5
There are somethings that USA just can't do (without drastic consequences), but other countries can do pretty well.

UHC is one of them.

It hasn't been tried yet in the U.S. and we do know that the current system isn't working either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...aring_health_premiums/

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accelerated his administration's efforts to control spiraling statewide healthcare costs, warning that rising premiums threaten to crush families and businesses and doom Massachusetts' groundbreaking experiment with universal insurance.

Patrick said officials are considering using state insurance regulations to block excessive healthcare premiums. He is also summoning leaders of insurance and hospital companies for meetings as soon as this week to ask for their "vigorous cooperation."

In response to stories by the Globe's Spotlight Team about the role of Partners HealthCare and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massa chusetts in driving up costs, Patrick convened a panel of senior administration figures yesterday to coordinate new and existing state cost containment efforts, which he said should produce action by summer. He also said he expects to file new legislation.

"The increases at this rate over time [are] just not sustainable, not for families, not to business, not for government," Patrick said at a news conference after the summit.

Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan also said he wants providers and insurers to delay signing new contracts until the administration has implemented new, as-yet-undetermined policies to limit premiums.

The Spotlight Team has reported, quoting officials directly involved in the negotiations, that the leaders of Partners and Blue Cross made a deal in 2000 in which Blue Cross significantly boosted its payments to Partners in exchange for Partners' insistence that all other insurers pay at least as much for the care of their members by Partners doctors. That prevented insurance companies from competing on price, and helped to drive up consumer prices statewide. Individual insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen nearly 9 percent a year since 2000, twice the annual rate increase of the late 1990s.

The Spotlight Team has also reported that Partners hospitals are paid significantly more than other, comparable facilities.

Partners and Blue Cross say they did nothing improper. Both companies contend that payments to hospitals had been too low before the 2000 agreement, and Partners said its CEO promised only to treat all insurers equally.

Both companies also said yesterday that they look forward to participating in Patrick's discussions. Partners spokesman Rich Copp said in a statement that cost increases nationally "have been mirrored almost exactly" in Massachusetts. He also noted that Partners' latest contract with Blue Cross, settled over the summer, "resulted in rate increases well below those experienced in prior years." The contract calls for increases in payments of about 5 to 6 percent a year, roughly equivalent to medical inflation.

Blue Cross CEO Cleve L. Killingsworth Jr. expressed support in a statement for one proposal the administration is considering: reforming the payment system to compensate hospitals for patient outcomes, rather than for the number of procedures or visits.



So these imbeciles pass outrageous mandates driving up the cost of insurance, make everyone purchase this insurance, have the government go bankrupt buying this expensive insurance, and then blames the insurance companies after the fact.

Can we call this experiment a failure yet?

Remove the insurance companies and make it socialized medicine, and costs would go down. We pay about 5-10 times what the English pay for healthcare, money which is mostly going to insurance companies and their overpriced CEOs. Have you checked the salary and perks of BC's CEO?

Health insurance companies are a relic of our cave days. Time to move on.

-Robert

Nope. If you figure what health care costs and then give 4/5 or 9/10 as executive salaries then they are trillionaires, or at least worth many times what Bill Gates is. Your estimation is entirely specious.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

Nope - no difference. Car INSURANCE is for when something damages your car - not when it needs routine maintenence. Health INSURANCE is the same way...except that people have mixed healthcare in with health INSURANCE so now it pays for your oil changes, tire rotations, etc.... and then people wonder why the hell INSURANCE is so expensive. Allow INSURANCE to go back to being INSURANCE instead of a catchall pool so other people can pick up your tab for your oil change.

I think you missed his point entirely. People have a set limit for how much they will pay to protect their car, but that limit disappears when talking about their life. Also increasing the opportunity cost for routine maintenance on our bodies in pretty dumb considering that leads to higher costs down the line. Also your analogy is flawed because if we took it literally that means you only want health insurance to cover accidents and not cancer or heart attacks or anything, because those would be equivalent to your car breaking down and not be covered by car insurance.

Come to think of it you sound really dumb overall in this post.. I'm beginning to think you're 12 years old.

lol, the only thing dumb is you thinking that cancer and other such things wouldn't be covered under INSURANCE. Preventative maintenance is normal office visits and the like - just like a tuneup, tire rotation, oil change. The major things would be covered by INSURANCE since it's a risk pooling situation. Yes, there are differences but it's the same concept...a concept that has been lost on people who think INSURANCE is somehow a "right". There is no reason to pool risk for routine maintenance and if people would go back to understanding what INSURANCE really is - instead of just using it to cost shift we'd be better off.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

Nope - no difference. Car INSURANCE is for when something damages your car - not when it needs routine maintenence. Health INSURANCE is the same way...except that people have mixed healthcare in with health INSURANCE so now it pays for your oil changes, tire rotations, etc.... and then people wonder why the hell INSURANCE is so expensive. Allow INSURANCE to go back to being INSURANCE instead of a catchall pool so other people can pick up your tab for your oil change.

I think you missed his point entirely. People have a set limit for how much they will pay to protect their car, but that limit disappears when talking about their life. Also increasing the opportunity cost for routine maintenance on our bodies in pretty dumb considering that leads to higher costs down the line. Also your analogy is flawed because if we took it literally that means you only want health insurance to cover accidents and not cancer or heart attacks or anything, because those would be equivalent to your car breaking down and not be covered by car insurance.

Come to think of it you sound really dumb overall in this post.. I'm beginning to think you're 12 years old.

lol, the only thing dumb is you thinking that cancer and other such things wouldn't be covered under INSURANCE. Preventative maintenance is normal office visits and the like - just like a tuneup, tire rotation, oil change. The major things would be covered by INSURANCE since it's a risk pooling situation. Yes, there are differences but it's the same concept...a concept that has been lost on people who think INSURANCE is somehow a "right". There is no reason to pool risk for routine maintenance and if people would go back to understanding what INSURANCE really is - instead of just using it to cost shift we'd be better off.

No.. no I still think it is dumb that you want to increase the opportunity cost for preventive care and instead only cover people when their body gets damaged. I think it is dumb that you think car.. um.. INSURANCE, should be the model for health INSURANCE. I think it oversimplifies the situation and anyone over 12 years old could see the simple reasons why that is an ineffective solution. You see if we pool routine maintenance on bodies we prevent having to cover the really big problems. Cars, in contrast, are not covered by insurance for breaking down so that isn't really an issue. They are covered if they are stolen, sometimes, or vandalized, or if they get into an accident. So under your model a human body would only be covered if it was kidnapped, assaulted, or got into an accident. If you wish to cover cancer and the like, as you've indicated, then you too are extending the idea of INSURANCE to beyond what the car INSURANCE models provides.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
There is a difference CAD. A stolen car or hail damage to your house will not kill you. Meaning that market will probably determine fair rates for auto/house insurance, however with health insurance, buyers do not have any leverage, they either pay or they die. Why do you think health costs have gone up so much lately? Because they can because people have no choice but to pay for it.

Nope - no difference. Car INSURANCE is for when something damages your car - not when it needs routine maintenence. Health INSURANCE is the same way...except that people have mixed healthcare in with health INSURANCE so now it pays for your oil changes, tire rotations, etc.... and then people wonder why the hell INSURANCE is so expensive. Allow INSURANCE to go back to being INSURANCE instead of a catchall pool so other people can pick up your tab for your oil change.

I think you missed his point entirely. People have a set limit for how much they will pay to protect their car, but that limit disappears when talking about their life. Also increasing the opportunity cost for routine maintenance on our bodies in pretty dumb considering that leads to higher costs down the line. Also your analogy is flawed because if we took it literally that means you only want health insurance to cover accidents and not cancer or heart attacks or anything, because those would be equivalent to your car breaking down and not be covered by car insurance.

Come to think of it you sound really dumb overall in this post.. I'm beginning to think you're 12 years old.

lol, the only thing dumb is you thinking that cancer and other such things wouldn't be covered under INSURANCE. Preventative maintenance is normal office visits and the like - just like a tuneup, tire rotation, oil change. The major things would be covered by INSURANCE since it's a risk pooling situation. Yes, there are differences but it's the same concept...a concept that has been lost on people who think INSURANCE is somehow a "right". There is no reason to pool risk for routine maintenance and if people would go back to understanding what INSURANCE really is - instead of just using it to cost shift we'd be better off.

No.. no I still think it is dumb that you want to increase the opportunity cost for preventive care and instead only cover people when their body gets damaged. I think it is dumb that you think car.. um.. INSURANCE, should be the model for health INSURANCE. I think it oversimplifies the situation and anyone over 12 years old could see the simple reasons why that is an ineffective solution. You see if we pool routine maintenance on bodies we prevent having to cover the really big problems. Cars, in contrast, are not covered by insurance for breaking down so that isn't really an issue. They are covered if they are stolen, sometimes, or vandalized, or if they get into an accident. So under your model a human body would only be covered if it was kidnapped, assaulted, or got into an accident. If you wish to cover cancer and the like, as you've indicated, then you too are extending the idea of INSURANCE to beyond what the car INSURANCE models provides.

I have no problem pooling resources for a 'routine checkup' aka yearly physical. What I don't want to pay for out of INSURANCE is for people to show up at the doctor's office because they have a runny nose. And believe me once it is all completely 'free' (meaning most of us posting here will be the ones paying for it via taxes) then people will take full advantage of it every time there is a sniffle.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: chess9

Remove the insurance companies and make it socialized medicine, and costs would go down. We pay about 5-10 times what the English pay for healthcare, money which is mostly going to insurance companies and their overpriced CEOs. Have you checked the salary and perks of BC's CEO?

Health insurance companies are a relic of our cave days. Time to move on.

-Robert

in 2002 the US spent 95% more, or roughly 2x, the OECD average for countries other than the US without waiting lists. waiting lists appeared to save about $330 per capita. not all that close to 5x and no where near the 10x you've got as your upper limit.

if 'health' insurance is so expensive because we're just pissing it away on insurance companies' CEOs, why not just bypass the insurance and pay the doctors directly? oh, wait, we did that, insurance was cheaper.

the real question is: (in 2004) why did massachusetts spend $6,683 per capita on 'health' care when utah spent $3,972? that's a 40% savings.

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

I have no problem pooling resources for a 'routine checkup' aka yearly physical. What I don't want to pay for out of INSURANCE is for people to show up at the doctor's office because they have a runny nose. And believe me once it is all completely 'free' (meaning most of us posting here will be the ones paying for it via taxes) then people will take full advantage of it every time there is a sniffle.

that's why we have co-pays.