46.3 million Americans without health insurance

While I agree health care NEEDS reform...ALL current House and Senate bills are NOT the reform that is needed. We do NOT need or want a "single payer" system. We don't need a government plan and we DEFINITELY do NOT need this to be forced down our throats.

What we need is:
1. Lower cost of insurance for those that are paying the premiums.
2. More competition in health care insurance.
3. Coverage for anyone that can't afford it but wants/needs it.


How can we get this?
1. Tort reform will lower the price Dr's pay for malpractice insurance and thus how much they need to charge for services. This worked in Texas.
2. Put caps on % markup for standard pharmaceuticals and hardware (such as tubing, bed pans, etc.) used in the health industry. This also reduces costs.
3. Currently you can only purchase plans from within the state in which you live. This should be changed to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This will exponentially increase the competition.
4. Expand the existing government programs (Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIPS) to cover those left uninsured that can't afford to get their own policy.

We can get everything we need without completely throwing out what we have now.
 
Quote from Maverickz:
3. Currently you can only purchase plans from within the state in which you live. This should be changed to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This will exponentially increase the competition.
[/B]
More...

Excellent idea ! This would certainly foster competition !
 
Gosh, please don't misconstrue that I was calling YOU a leftist. My bad in not being clear.

Thanks for the well thought response, too.

Let me add this. If insurance profits were truly windfall there'd be nothing approaching a monopoly. We're not talking about diamond mines. Anyone with capital can underwrite insurance. Where's Geico/Buffet? Or Walmart? Or a few hedge funds? I'm in the same boat with Florida hurricane insurance. Bottom line: Absent an mf of a premium there's no one in their right mind who wants to assume the risk. The same way that the $VIX isn't 24 during a crash.

When Obama talks about his plan being revenue neutral I lmao. Insurance by it's very nature is close to zero sum (maybe a 10% vig) or else capital would FLOCK to the industry. The same way if there was only 5 market makers in SPX options and they "set" the market at a 40 vol. How long would it take for someone to under cut them? IMO, Blue Cross, United etal trade pretty close to the market in setting premiums vs. claims.

But yea, of course, a profit incentive works against policy holders.

OTOH, is it not in the insurance companies best interest to reign in medical prices?


Quote from hayman:

Let me respond:

1) Risk and cost are all derived from statistics and the actuarial tables. Add the additional overhead of bloated and superfluous "managed-care" administration, and the price increases. Add the near monopolistic hold that the insurance companies have, and price increases further. We need to get rid of the middle-management waste, and provide more competition in the industry, to reduce cost, and stymie these annual double-digit increases. Obviously, self-insurance would cost significantly more, when I am evaluated purely against myself, and not the larger pool.

2) I'm glad that you brought up Public Education; that is out of control as well. My real estate taxes have tripled in the last 16 years (went up more than 2.5 times during Bush administration alone). The Teacher's Union has everyone by the balls these days; it's unbelievable the concessions they have received. The bulk of my R.E. bill is local taxes - and 2/3 of my local taxes is public education. Over 2/3 of our entire school budget is made up of teachers' retirement and health benefits (see, not totally off-topic !). I've examined our local school budget carefully, and the local taxpayers subsidize 85 % of teachers' health carel. Does subsidizing teachers' exhorbitant heatlh care costs make them teach better and make my children any smarter ? I seriously doubt it. So, I think we are on the same page here. And by the way, I'm not a leftist. I am a long-time Rebpulican, turn centrist. I'm all about the correct solution, not about sticking to a party doctrine.

3) Competition is a key ingredient to the free market place. We need to provide alternatives to the status quo. The health insurance sector, although not a pure monopoly, has the look and feel of a cartel, more and more, all the time. Sure, life is the most important thing of all - I totally agree - but isn't there something morally wrong with making huge globs of money off life, when in fact, insurance companies relish denying service, to increase profits, with absolutely no regard or concerns for life. I think INSURANCE COMPANIES & LIFE are a diametrically opposed oxymoron.
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Let me be Devil's advocate.

1. Why don't you self insure? I presume because you don't want the risk, eh? Well what makes you think someone else wants the risk of you getting cancer and costing them a million dollars?

2. It's funny but few Leftist's squak about the spiraling cost of public education. I pesume your $1200 a month insurance premium includes a couple or more children. Most public school systems spend a thousand a month educating your kids. What SHOULD cost more? I'd rather produce education-little variance-for a grand a month than assume open ended liability for for that same thou.

3. As a society have we ever pondered that compared to the cost of housing, perhaps insurance is too cheap? Few us question a dank, city apartment costing $1000 or more a month yet we belch at our health premium costing half that. Many of us in Big Cities spend more on parking than health insurance! I say let the feee market derived value of insurance premiums CROWD OUT other expenditures. Hell, we're talking about LIFE. Should that not be our biggest expense?
More...

Exactly. It amazes me that even traders, who should have some business/economic savvy can't grasp the numbers.

This shit isn't free. Someone pays for it either way. We all want great h/c and yet nobody wants to pay for it.

Either insurance companies and/or the government has to pay out enough to keep the country's h/c standards high enough to keep people happy. At the end of the day, WE PAY FOR IT, whether it's via private insurance premiums or taxes to the government.
 
Quote from PocketChange:

Take Europe's weakest link Spain.

16% VAT and up to 40 % progressive Income Taxes.

Every Citizen receives: Healthcare, College Education and 4 weeks Paid Vacation.
More...

I don't know that Spain is exactly the country the US should be modeling its system after.

I lived in Spain and your average Spaniard had a considerably lower standard of living than your average American.
 
We need routine, expanded cheaper diagnostic tests. Perhaps like "lab-on-a-chip" or even expanded fluids test panels (blood and "other") on a routine basis to detect warning signs and guide health.

Diagnostics and monitoring can be key to finding and treating many chronic illnesses in real time, illnesses not well treated by conventional medicine but described in the conventional medical science literature and integrated by "alternative medicine" approaches like lef.org or orthomed.org.

If integrated chemical plants ran detection tests and system control like medicine is run, Texas and NJ would be craters a long time ago.

Access to low cost testing, transparent pricing, effective treatments through medical freedom, and self-accountability are important factors to the healthcare crisis. Continued government intrusion will likely slowdown or destroy evolution to much better approaches.
 
If you remove the profit factor from providing for the cost of health care you remove the <b>taking on risk</b> element of the system and by the way, the health companies were not forced to accept the risk of someone else getting cancer and costing them a million dollars. They chose that line of business because they can charge outrageous premiums and make an extremely lucrative salary in the process. You definitely got something right, insurance companies are most certainly the devil!

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Let me be Devil's advocate.

1. Why don't you self insure? I presume because you don't want the risk, eh? Well what makes you think someone else wants the risk of you getting cancer and costing them a million dollars?

2. It's funny but few Leftist's squak about the spiraling cost of public education. I pesume your $1200 a month insurance premium includes a couple or more children. Most public school systems spend a thousand a month educating your kids. What SHOULD cost more? I'd rather produce education-little variance-for a grand a month than assume open ended liability for for that same thou.

3. As a society have we ever pondered that compared to the cost of housing, perhaps insurance is too cheap? Few us question a dank, city apartment costing $1000 or more a month yet we belch at our health premium costing half that. Many of us in Big Cities spend more on parking than health insurance! I say let the feee market derived value of insurance premiums CROWD OUT other expenditures. Hell, we're talking about LIFE. Should that not be our biggest expense?
More...
 
Quote from clacy:

This shit isn't free. Someone pays for it either way. We all want great h/c and yet nobody wants to pay for it.

Either insurance companies and/or the government has to pay out enough to keep the country's h/c standards high enough to keep people happy. At the end of the day, WE PAY FOR IT, whether it's via private insurance premiums or taxes to the government.
More...

Yes it costs money and a lot of it. The bottom line of it all is there are fundamentally only 3 ways to lower the total cost of health care. First is to reduce the cost of the care itself (my suggestions above). Second reduce the amount of health care the people in the system need (rationing). Third, is to reduce the number of people in the system(either denial of coverage or "death panels").

Since Obama's plan does not directly reduce what health care costs as my ideas do, how does he plan on increasing the number of people in the system by 12-40million (depending on who's numbers you believe) and yet actually save any money? The answer is there will HAVE to be rationing....no way around it. You cannot increase the number of people needing health care while reducing costs without it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top