.....all with the understanding that any logical process anyone can come up with to better handle healthcare and paying for it must be made keeping in mind that the insurance lobby and medical lobby would be strong enough to thwart that logic even if 100% of the population of the US agreed to it.
"COBRA"? Whenever I hear that I think "What a stupid name for insurance.." I have never said it publicly until now. I bet lots of people feel the same way.
Can do it wrote:
What I think should be done as a general outline is what we're seeing in part as a substitute for insurance for primary care. That is paying to specific doctors or groups of doctors a monthly fee covering primary care. I've seen these types of plans offered at $50 per month although I'm not sure the scope of coverage.
Major medical is covered by a catastrophic policy. Problem is that even the cost of a catastrophic policy such as Short term (12mos or less) plans available in many states are out of the reach of some if not many. Maybe that is where the government steps in with coverage.
I’ve lived in countries where medical insurance was the exception rather than the rule. In those places the cost of care was a fraction of what it costs here, because people needed to pay out of pocket. When care was obtained, it wasn’t far off from first rate care even though cost was low. To be sure, when major medical situations arose it created hardship, but people somehow made do. A lot of passing the hat around.
My niece was in one of those countries not too long ago and was involved in an accident including a visit to ER for a broken nose and other abrasions. Total cost of care was $40.
Average lifespan in those places not too far off the US or Europe. Not a whole lot of administrative waste in the system, not a whole lot of malpractice lawsuits, and not a whole lot of inefficiencies just because people wouldn’t pay for it. A few souls fell through the cracks, for sure, but not every system is perfect and many fall through the cracks here as well
Ocasio-Cortez on line 3 wrote:
Back in real world, reality means Marxist = Venezuela plan, but it's unsurprising you'd prefer that.
Comparing universal health care to Venezuela is the argument of the feeble-minded.
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-16-countries-with-the-worlds-best-healthcare-systems-2017-1/What's do the health programs of these countries have in common?
What country(s) is it you speak about?
eryer wrote:
What country(s) is it you speak about?
Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia.
Affordable Care Act was initially rule Constitutional because mandating every driver in US to purchase liability auto insurance was ruled Constitutional in 1980's. Mandating all drivers to purchase liability auto insurance was the first time in US history that citizens were basically forced to buy a private good and/or service. If Affordable Care Act were ever 100% rule Unconstitutional, no way forcing citizens to purchase liability auto insurance with penalty of jail would be able to remain law in U.S.
Khggf wrote:
Slow your roll wrote:
Let's talk about idiots.
I dont drink.
I don't smoke.
I don't use illicit drugs.
I don't overeat myself into obesity.
I don't have rampant unprotected sex with multiple partners.
Why should I pay for the healthcare of those who suffer the effects of those who voluntarily engage in those behaviors?
I've never smoked a cigarette but somehow I have to pay for the medical bills of a decades long smoker who is suffering from lung cancer, CHF and or COPD.
yep. I'm the idiot.
That’s today, but in 40 years you may not be so lucky. Then you’re screwed
I am not sure I understand your point. At any rate, I don't think I'll live to be 112.
husseincare shoulda been ruled unconstitutional twice already and Chief Justice John Roberts saved it, twice!
Hi Hardloper!
TAA wrote:
Hi Hardloper!
Hi TAA! Kinda late over there isn't it!
Hardloper wrote:
TAA wrote:
Hi Hardloper!
Hi TAA! Kinda late over there isn't it!
Haha yah. I love staying up late on weekends.
I’ve cared for wealthy people, but capitalism has no comfort for them. The System says that, in effect, anyone not working is better off dead. That’s the reality of healthcare without an ethical foundation.
precedent set in 1980's wrote:
Affordable Care Act was initially rule Constitutional because mandating every driver in US to purchase liability auto insurance was ruled Constitutional in 1980's. Mandating all drivers to purchase liability auto insurance was the first time in US history that citizens were basically forced to buy a private good and/or service. If Affordable Care Act were ever 100% rule Unconstitutional, no way forcing citizens to purchase liability auto insurance with penalty of jail would be able to remain law in U.S.
Did you just make all of this up, or is there some little backwater of the web where one can find stuff like this?
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief?
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief? I mean the hardcore folks who think the solution to every problem is “free market reform” or who say “the market will correct that”. I think it is especially since for many areas of the economy (healthcare for example) there are no real world, empirical examples of how a “free market” healthcare system is superior in anyway to a universal / socialized system. The folks who spout off about “free market” and healthcare are applying principles to a system and claiming theoretical superiority using examples outside the healthcare realm.
I think free market zealots are no different than radical Islamic terrorists in the staunchness of their beliefs with little to no real world data supporting their position.
They are also similar to climate change cultists who base their opinions on media reports rather than peer reviewed data.
What’s wrong with all of these people?
Ideology>>>reality wrote:
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief?
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief? I mean the hardcore folks who think the solution to every problem is “free market reform” or who say “the market will correct that”. I think it is especially since for many areas of the economy (healthcare for example) there are no real world, empirical examples of how a “free market” healthcare system is superior in anyway to a universal / socialized system. The folks who spout off about “free market” and healthcare are applying principles to a system and claiming theoretical superiority using examples outside the healthcare realm.
I think free market zealots are no different than radical Islamic terrorists in the staunchness of their beliefs with little to no real world data supporting their position.
They are also similar to climate change cultists who base their opinions on media reports rather than peer reviewed data.
What’s wrong with all of these people?
I hope that made you feel better
fgfrg wrote:
I know it seems hard to believe but there are people who in fact have their own money to buy all the healthcare they need. You can not get ahead with insurance - it's a heck of a lot worse than Vegas odds. Most people put in far more than they will ever get out. It's also one of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US. Free markets and freedom of choice will bring costs way down and quality way up.
You talk as if Insurance companies and the market impact quality. Well insurance does - it lowers it, and apportions it to those who have enough money.
The Healthcare in the US is fine. The drs are great, the hospitals are excellent. Way better than a lot of overseas stuff. I managed hc in the UK, Australia, and the US. If I was going to be seriously ill, the US is where I'd rather be.
Insurance is the problem. Plus the desire to compartment profit margins into blocs. The insurance companies separate states and regions into pools to artificially inflate margins. Do you really think they don't look at patient pools nationally, while the break it down into smaller pools to justify higher profits due to 'risk"? And due to the government limits on their profit margins, they do all they can to increase the base cost of healthcare. So as long as you keep insurance involved, increasing admin fees, refusing reimbursements, you will never drop the costs. And they invented pre-existing conditions to reduce their exposure and maximize their return. They're about profits, not about healthcare.
The cornerstone of a government strategy should be Healthcare, Education, Defense, and Infrastructure. We rip people off in Education deny healthcare, ignore our Infrastructure, and Defend everyone else except our own population. And please, no one from Niger is planting a bomb in NYC.
There are plenty of efficiencies we can apply to our process. The government already pays for 55% of the nation's healthcare via the DoD, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare etc. Each of these bodies have a different contracting process. So one pharma product may have to contract with 5 + different government departments for the 1 product.
People love to use the VA as an example of failed a government health process, but forget that the VA was being phased out, as they waited for the last Vietnam Vet to die. Now we've decided our business is military based, and we have involved ourselves in non-stop war, we've accumulated an entirely new generation of patients, and the only thing tip top at a VA is the white painted rocks around the parking lot.
Instead of Obama handing of healthcare to the insurance industry, it would have been easier to roll the uninsured into Medicaid. Clear up the contracting inefficiencies, allow the current insurance program to continue and not increase the costs for the 310 million covered, just to 'Help" 10 million who weren't. covered.
Canada have a workable hybrid. We could have easily taken that on. Instead we got a repeal and replace rant from those who had no idea what the challenge was, nor any idea how to fix it.
We seem more intent on preserving business interests than solving healthcare for the citizens of this country.
Rubbish wrote:
fgfrg wrote:
I know it seems hard to believe but there are people who in fact have their own money to buy all the healthcare they need. You can not get ahead with insurance - it's a heck of a lot worse than Vegas odds. Most people put in far more than they will ever get out. It's also one of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US. Free markets and freedom of choice will bring costs way down and quality way up.
You talk as if Insurance companies and the market impact quality. Well insurance does - it lowers it, and apportions it to those who have enough money.
The Healthcare in the US is fine. The drs are great, the hospitals are excellent. Way better than a lot of overseas stuff. I managed hc in the UK, Australia, and the US. If I was going to be seriously ill, the US is where I'd rather be.
Insurance is the problem. Plus the desire to compartment profit margins into blocs. The insurance companies separate states and regions into pools to artificially inflate margins. Do you really think they don't look at patient pools nationally, while the break it down into smaller pools to justify higher profits due to 'risk"? And due to the government limits on their profit margins, they do all they can to increase the base cost of healthcare. So as long as you keep insurance involved, increasing admin fees, refusing reimbursements, you will never drop the costs. And they invented pre-existing conditions to reduce their exposure and maximize their return. They're about profits, not about healthcare.
The cornerstone of a government strategy should be Healthcare, Education, Defense, and Infrastructure. We rip people off in Education deny healthcare, ignore our Infrastructure, and Defend everyone else except our own population. And please, no one from Niger is planting a bomb in NYC.
There are plenty of efficiencies we can apply to our process. The government already pays for 55% of the nation's healthcare via the DoD, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare etc. Each of these bodies have a different contracting process. So one pharma product may have to contract with 5 + different government departments for the 1 product.
People love to use the VA as an example of failed a government health process, but forget that the VA was being phased out, as they waited for the last Vietnam Vet to die. Now we've decided our business is military based, and we have involved ourselves in non-stop war, we've accumulated an entirely new generation of patients, and the only thing tip top at a VA is the white painted rocks around the parking lot.
Instead of Obama handing of healthcare to the insurance industry, it would have been easier to roll the uninsured into Medicaid. Clear up the contracting inefficiencies, allow the current insurance program to continue and not increase the costs for the 310 million covered, just to 'Help" 10 million who weren't. covered.
Canada have a workable hybrid. We could have easily taken that on. Instead we got a repeal and replace rant from those who had no idea what the challenge was, nor any idea how to fix it.
We seem more intent on preserving business interests than solving healthcare for the citizens of this country.
I'm in tears from the beauty of this post.
Ideology>>>reality wrote:
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief?
Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief? I mean the hardcore folks who think the solution to every problem is “free market reform” or who say “the market will correct that”. I think it is especially since for many areas of the economy (healthcare for example) there are no real world, empirical examples of how a “free market” healthcare system is superior in anyway to a universal / socialized system. The folks who spout off about “free market” and healthcare are applying principles to a system and claiming theoretical superiority using examples outside the healthcare realm.
I think free market zealots are no different than radical Islamic terrorists in the staunchness of their beliefs with little to no real world data supporting their position.
They are also similar to climate change cultists who base their opinions on media reports rather than peer reviewed data.
What’s wrong with all of these people?
I've often referred to such faith in free markets as a form of religion, but I'm not sure where you're going with your analogy to "climate change cultists who base their opinions on media reports rather than peer reviewed data."
Rubbish wrote:
fgfrg wrote:
I know it seems hard to believe but there are people who in fact have their own money to buy all the healthcare they need. You can not get ahead with insurance - it's a heck of a lot worse than Vegas odds. Most people put in far more than they will ever get out. It's also one of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US. Free markets and freedom of choice will bring costs way down and quality way up.
You talk as if Insurance companies and the market impact quality. Well insurance does - it lowers it, and apportions it to those who have enough money.
The Healthcare in the US is fine. The drs are great, the hospitals are excellent. Way better than a lot of overseas stuff. I managed hc in the UK, Australia, and the US. If I was going to be seriously ill, the US is where I'd rather be.
Insurance is the problem. Plus the desire to compartment profit margins into blocs. The insurance companies separate states and regions into pools to artificially inflate margins. Do you really think they don't look at patient pools nationally, while the break it down into smaller pools to justify higher profits due to 'risk"? And due to the government limits on their profit margins, they do all they can to increase the base cost of healthcare. So as long as you keep insurance involved, increasing admin fees, refusing reimbursements, you will never drop the costs. And they invented pre-existing conditions to reduce their exposure and maximize their return. They're about profits, not about healthcare.
The cornerstone of a government strategy should be Healthcare, Education, Defense, and Infrastructure. We rip people off in Education deny healthcare, ignore our Infrastructure, and Defend everyone else except our own population. And please, no one from Niger is planting a bomb in NYC.
There are plenty of efficiencies we can apply to our process. The government already pays for 55% of the nation's healthcare via the DoD, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare etc. Each of these bodies have a different contracting process. So one pharma product may have to contract with 5 + different government departments for the 1 product.
People love to use the VA as an example of failed a government health process, but forget that the VA was being phased out, as they waited for the last Vietnam Vet to die. Now we've decided our business is military based, and we have involved ourselves in non-stop war, we've accumulated an entirely new generation of patients, and the only thing tip top at a VA is the white painted rocks around the parking lot.
Instead of Obama handing of healthcare to the insurance industry, it would have been easier to roll the uninsured into Medicaid. Clear up the contracting inefficiencies, allow the current insurance program to continue and not increase the costs for the 310 million covered, just to 'Help" 10 million who weren't. covered.
Canada have a workable hybrid. We could have easily taken that on. Instead we got a repeal and replace rant from those who had no idea what the challenge was, nor any idea how to fix it.
We seem more intent on preserving business interests than solving healthcare for the citizens of this country.
Pretty good except for the Niger comment. I’ll let you research recent history there.
Alan