How would you change the medical care delivery / insurance system in the US?
- Thread starter tjl
- Start date
That's a tough one. There are no easy answers.
I think it's funny that Obama says he's going to "take on insurance companies" to make prices lower. They are the only ones trying to keep prices down. That's why providers get pissed at them, because they think their contracted rates are too low. Look at your next EOB and see what your doc charges vs. what he actually gets paid.
I think it's funny that Obama says he's going to "take on insurance companies" to make prices lower. They are the only ones trying to keep prices down. That's why providers get pissed at them, because they think their contracted rates are too low. Look at your next EOB and see what your doc charges vs. what he actually gets paid.
Actually, the insurance companies are only trying to keep what they pay providers low. They do not pass this on to the consumer in the form of lower premiums. So really, insurance companies are just trying to increase profit margins.
There is one way I'll agree they have caused an increase although unintentionally. a few years back we had the age of the HMO. No one cared what anything cost because they only had to pay a small copay so they didn't notice the huge inflation. Plus they started going to the doc for every little thing. Why go if you have a cold? What is a doc really going to do for you? ..and people will go to the ER for the flu etc.
I used to work for a health ins company and believe me, they did things I didn't like. I also saw a lot of docs doing dishonest things to stick their patients with paying more and of course we got the blame for that. For instance there were several podiatrists that didn't like their contracted rates for foot orthotics so instead of accepting the contracted rates as they were required to do by their legally binding contracts they would make the patients pay an inflated cost up front then reimburse them only the amount insurance paid....good luck getting the rest back.
kinda what I was just saying...it makes people stop and think a little more before going to a $250 ER visit because they have an infected paper cut
I also wanted to state that a lot of this is no one's fault. The technological advances we enjoy in this modern age are expensive. It's no different in every day life. Have you ever wondered how our grandfathers could raise a whole family on a simple factory wage? They didn't have air conditioning, computers, internet access, cell phones, onstar, netflix, hot tubs, home swimming pools,they only had one; simple mechanical car, their houses were smaller etc.
Same thing with medicine. In their day people died from diseases we can effectively treat today...but those treatments are often incredibly expensive
Same thing with medicine. In their day people died from diseases we can effectively treat today...but those treatments are often incredibly expensive
Make insurance like auto or homeowners insurance. That way you don't lose you healthcare if you get laid off. One can shop around and compare rates / coverage etc. Its going to be a raquet either way.
also rates would be lower for people with fewer claims etc. If you go to the ER because of the flu they you're an idiot and you should pay more.
Of course I'm don't think it would be fair to someone who actually has a condition to pay out the ass. So its really a double edged sword here.
also rates would be lower for people with fewer claims etc. If you go to the ER because of the flu they you're an idiot and you should pay more.
Of course I'm don't think it would be fair to someone who actually has a condition to pay out the ass. So its really a double edged sword here.
So then you'd leave it to the companies to charge what they want with no regulation?
Sadly, many people who needed it wouldn't be able to afford everything they needed. Only the elite would be able to afford preventative care. Important but "non-essential" stuff like cancer screening and tests for serious diseases would probably not be covered under a system like that. I say, put health care in the hands of the people by taxing them. We could create a supportive network where everyone is covered for the important things. We should get care that prevents diseases, not just care to treat the deadly conditions once they have arisen.
They have that in Canada, and it's not working out well.
Solution=lower insurance monthly costs. Cut out deductibles. Cut out co-pays. Cut out pre-existing conditions exempting you from receiving insurance. I'd say use a sliding scale, but the middle class would get screwed as usual.
You make a good point but I just don't think our government is capable of managing such a system. There would be endless red tape and politicking iwth people's health. I have zero faith that our government can do anything right. I understand that not everyone will be happy all the time but every major system the gov oversees is a total debacle. Healthcare is far too serious for them to be allowed to run amock with it.
I'm thinking it would be just like owning a car. You have to have insurance by law and everyone pays for it in some way. You can pick your packages according to your needs.
There is no really good solution here. I can see health insurance being like friggin State Farm when you have a claim. LOL
I just don't see how putting insurance in the hands of the big companies would be a good idea. The companies, first and foremost, want to make money. In order to make money, the do stupid and risky things out of greed. I just don't see how an insurance company would have the people's health in mind if they're busy making money off of those people.
This is the idealist in me speaking here. In the ideal world, we could all be taken care of. Our essential health care, which would include regular checkups and preventative care would all be free, for everyone. I know, however, that the money just does not exist to make this happen. The entire health care system is a business, and they need money to do what they do. If we can't make it entirely non-profit and for the people, then we should at least nudge it in that direction. Putting it in the hands of greedy companies is the wrong choice. Putting it in the hands of a greedy government is the wrong choice as well. I can see how it's easy to argue against both sides.
This is the idealist in me speaking here. In the ideal world, we could all be taken care of. Our essential health care, which would include regular checkups and preventative care would all be free, for everyone. I know, however, that the money just does not exist to make this happen. The entire health care system is a business, and they need money to do what they do. If we can't make it entirely non-profit and for the people, then we should at least nudge it in that direction. Putting it in the hands of greedy companies is the wrong choice. Putting it in the hands of a greedy government is the wrong choice as well. I can see how it's easy to argue against both sides.
I know in the past, with lighter insurance restrictions, doctors abused the hell of the services they would provide to patients. It all didn't matter, they would get reimbursed anyways. So more government regulations came into play to reduce costs, insurance companies being nitpicky, had or still has a profound effect on how patients are treated. I don't believe that insurance companies should be allowed to dictate the amount and quality of care a person will receive.
"Oh, it's my professional opinion that this is the only procedure that will save your life. However, your insurance does not cover it, so I have to discharge you." I'm reaching, I know. There needs to be checks and balances, I know. Doctors shouldn't abuse their practices, insurance shouldn't dictate. SO what do we do? It's going to be a never-ending process.
"Oh, it's my professional opinion that this is the only procedure that will save your life. However, your insurance does not cover it, so I have to discharge you." I'm reaching, I know. There needs to be checks and balances, I know. Doctors shouldn't abuse their practices, insurance shouldn't dictate. SO what do we do? It's going to be a never-ending process.
It's a double edged sword...Having no incentive to be competitive in an open market and no incentive to run a lean business and maximize profit can cause prices to go even higher
I'm not sure which will be worse
*ugh*
medical insurance. I'm with Evo on this, we should have to pay our cost, and get rid of the co-pays. I don't think that insurance should be allowed to exempt you because of pre-existing conditions.
I can't tell you if we would have survived if it weren't for the military. My kids have had HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars worth of medical care because of their FXS and Autism. Had we had to rely on an HMO, I'm not sure what condition my kids would be in today. It's frightening.
Thankfully we still have the military insurance AND we have insurance thru my husbands work. We are lucky that we can afford, to have both (yes we pay for BOTH insurances)
Most people aren't that lucky, but having insurance is a MUST in our family. If we only had the military insurance, we would be ok, as we don't have to pay anything, ER or otherwise and that includes prescriptions. But they don't always offer you the best solution to the problem. So we have our other insurance to give us an option.
people should NOT have to live without health care, period. I know I did when I was younger there was a period when I wasn't covered, and it wasn't until I married that I got insurance again.
It shouldn't come to that. I think there should be a means be it a sliding scale, or otherwise.
medical insurance. I'm with Evo on this, we should have to pay our cost, and get rid of the co-pays. I don't think that insurance should be allowed to exempt you because of pre-existing conditions.
I can't tell you if we would have survived if it weren't for the military. My kids have had HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars worth of medical care because of their FXS and Autism. Had we had to rely on an HMO, I'm not sure what condition my kids would be in today. It's frightening.
Thankfully we still have the military insurance AND we have insurance thru my husbands work. We are lucky that we can afford, to have both (yes we pay for BOTH insurances)
Most people aren't that lucky, but having insurance is a MUST in our family. If we only had the military insurance, we would be ok, as we don't have to pay anything, ER or otherwise and that includes prescriptions. But they don't always offer you the best solution to the problem. So we have our other insurance to give us an option.
people should NOT have to live without health care, period. I know I did when I was younger there was a period when I wasn't covered, and it wasn't until I married that I got insurance again.
It shouldn't come to that. I think there should be a means be it a sliding scale, or otherwise.
One thing that needs to be thought about is that if insurers were not allowed to exclude or charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions, then coverage would have to be made universal and mandatory, in order to avoid adverse selection, where some people may voluntarily go uninsured, but buy insurance just when the doctor says "you have ____ which requires ___ expensive treatments over the next several months." That would be analogous to knowing when you will have a car crash or house fire and buying car or house insurance the day before.
Then that leads to the problem of some people not being able to afford the mandatory insurance, which would mean some sort of government subsidy, voucher, or something like that so that everyone could have it.
Yes, and put the onus back on the "invisible hand" of the consumer, where it's supposed to be in a "market economy".
I say this because it's not very hard to keep a company in check. Stop giving it any money and like any good whore with only one john, it will fall in line pretty fast, or starve (opening up the position for some other, more skilled whore).
On the other hand, what means do you have of keeping your government in line? You have, theoretically, option A or option B. In practice, they are the same. The best and most obvious way to keep a government in line is to decrease its nonessential control over its citizens lives.
They (the sickly) are either capable or not of acquiring for themselves health services. Should they fail to do so by means of responsible consumerism (or should such be rendered impossible via health insurance by the restrictions imposed by companies) - too bad, so sad. Why should I, a healthy individual who (albeit fairly recently) takes what I consider to be an adequate level of responsibility for his health, be required to subsidize those who are not and do not?
You're bang on, Focus. That's the only way to do it that makes any sense whatsoever.