rogerj

[quote name='DRANGED' date='Aug 16 2009, 12:22 AM' post='977931']
One could have a high deductible catastrophic insurance policy for extended stays and emergencies. Rates would be low because the likelihood of such an event is low.

The problem is the general population has been accustomed to having everything covered 100% and having little to no copay. They want everything for free. This is like having car insurance to pay for oil changes and car washes. They all want to drive a BMW but pay for a Yugo.

As far as Dr's...You would be surprised. Have you ever spoke to a Dr. regarding paying them directly? Most are more than willing to take cash at a discounted rate.

DRANGED

Insurance is a business. If you continue to total your cars does your insurance not drop you? The more risk you present, the higher rates you pay. Such should be the same with medical insurance. If you are a higher risk, you're cost should be higher. Such practices in medical insurance though are deemed discriminitory. Hell, if your credit is bad you pay a higher rate for car insurance.

I know many will be quick to draw the comparison that we are talking about human lives and not cars but the analogy is sound. You expect business to go into bankruptcy so that you do not? The point of business is profit.

Just an idea but maybe all medial insurance companies should be non-profit organizations instead. This would help reduce costs.

DRANGED

[/quote]

roger, I have negotiated cash payment many times. In the immortal words of the Wu Tang Clan, Cash Rules Eveything Around Me

MiamiPhill

Ok, so I'll assume you misspoke here.........Anyway flesh out this HSA for me, I have given it a lot of thought & have ideas on it but you first.....how would you want it to look.?

BTW Roger, Dr's will often quote you a reduced rate if you tell them you are paying out of pocket.

swajames

You've just summed up why so many other countries have the healthcare systems they do...

pjinca

Now THAT's an idea. A corporation should NOT be deciding whether grandma lives or not. The right wing likes to throw the "death panels" term around and yet they already exist, we just call them board rooms. In any other situation we frown on people profiting from pain and misery, but somehow this practice is accepted in the insurance industry.
There is no better argument for a Gov't option than taking the health decisions out of the hands of board members and putting them back in doctors hands

DRANGED

Yeah, perhaps non-profit insurance companies are the answer? Who knows? I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do not think that gov't is the answer. I believe putting ones trust in gov't is a recipe for disaster. As I have said in previous posts, all one need do is look to medicare, medicaid, social security and public schools for proof.

There are far too many special interests at work in gov't. For proof of that, one need only look to the current proposed plan and exemption of Unions from the public option roles.

Why does congress have privatized health care if public health care is the cats meow? I think you will find, under examination of the plan, congress and the president exempt from the gov't roles as well.

DRANGED

Unfortunately the health decisions do not go directly into the Dr's hands under the gov't plan. They go into bureaucrats hands that will be forced to make the same decisions as that of the boardroom. The gov't will not be working with unlimited funds.

pjinca

Well, how about this:
A "healthcare trust fund", such as Social Security was set up to be (it wasn't incorporated into the budget until Kennedy - thank you JFK - prick). The gov't can't touch it, but everyone and their employer contributes and should something happen it is deducted from here. This could reduce costs, eliminate insurers, and give the docs and nurses caring for the patient the ability to care for the person as needed.

No matter what we come up with, preventative care MUST be a big piece of it. Excercise, regular check ups, better nutrition, encouraging people to drink, eat, and do anything else in moderation. Face it we are a gluttonous society and this needs to be part of the remedy.

swajames

I don't think it's fair to cite public schools as a disaster, John. While there's always room for improvement, if anything the best run districts provide a possible template and an example of what the healthcare model could perhaps be.

As it stands today, every child must attend school, and the local district is obligated to provide a place. If, however, the parents choose, they can either home-school or take their kids private. Either way, taxes fund the public option and you pay whether or not you choose to consume, but you always have the ability to pay for a private option if that's your preference. The availability of the public option maintains pressure on private providers to provide extra value.

It's essentially how the public healthcare model could (and probably will) operate.

The core difference, however, is that while the law demands every child must go to school (and all of us pay the same tax burden, irrespective of whether our kids are publicly or privately educated) it makes no such demands in relation to healthcare. That's what I feel is wrong. As I've posted before, a public option, with the ability for those who want to do something different to maintain that choice, has to be a very viable option.