Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

i.e. a government health care program would likely be cheaper than health insurance, and thus force them to lower their prices in order to be competitive. Maybe a government program isn't as efficient as the free market, but it has no profit interest and can calculate the profits out of the price. The customer pays for inefficiency as much as for profits.

A lowering of prices for health coverage works against the profits interests of health insurance companies in the US, and largely explains the massive lobbying effort conducted against a government program.

The choice is basically between trying to make a non-profit program run efficiently and regulate (i.e. reduce and limit) corporate profits in health care program and retaining a commercial program as it is now, with all the downsides. Make your pick.

 

Chandos, again, what does that have to do with mandating coverage?


Ragusa, I do think there's one more choice, though I don't know if it's a good one:
Offer an optional gov't program which is cheap, decent, but not exessive alongside the private ones. That may force competition into the system without killing it.

 

I vote for a Government Option. I for one would be willing to sacrifice a little for those who do not have Health Care to gain an option that can really help save lives, especially the lives of children that aren't covered.

But the one thing that does bother me is this.... there are many here that don't work, have never worked and have never had an inclanation to work, even when jobs were plentiful. I believe that to qualify for a Gov't Health Care option, you need to have something in your past that shows you are willing to contribute to the whole, to make our society thrive. Those with illnesses and disabilities are excluded of course. They need it the most. But if your just the lazy bum, why should we foot the bill for you?

 

Blades, my question is how much are you willing to pay? $50/month? $100? $500? How about capable doctors? How about a flexible system? Are you willing to give those up?

 

You got it! That's the current proposal. You've come to the same conclusion as Obama. Yay!

 

That doesn't mean I like it, Chandos. Though, how much I like it is very dependant on how extensive and expensive the gov't option is, and how tax-funded it is. Honestly, they could make it whatever they want as long as it's self-sufficient, but if I'm going to be paying for it whether I use it or not, I don't want it too extravogent

 

That's the core of the debate, atm. A lot of people are concerned about the overall cost and how we will fund it. Once you remove all the lies about death panels and rationing and all the other crap, there is a real legitimate debate about how to make it work. But we know the current system is breaking down, because employers are cutting back on their side, since costs are so high. So if employers are slowly backing out of the current system, who is going to pay?

 

Flexible system? Where? The wife and I have had 2 children over the last 3 years. You show me where the flexibility lies, I can't seem to find it. The out-of-pocket/network expenses are ridiculous.

As for what am I willing to pay? $50.00 a month is not breaking my bank. And if it's breaking yours, I have no sympathy for you, you should of been more responsible with your financials in the past. That's the biggest cause, IMO, of why were in such a bind. THERE IS NO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLITY IN THE USA. NONE. NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR CORPORATELY. The real key is what are Americans willing to give for Health Care. My guess is the majority aren't willing to contribute. That is the roadblock Obama will run into. He can't create an option out of nothing and with the economy down, people just won't be willing to sacrifice to help others. It's a shame. Too bad this wasn't fixed 12 years ago, Clinton would of had a better shot of coming up with an Option. People had money and job security and would of been more willing then.

 

Blades, you misinterpreted. I don't think $50 is that much. In fact, it's very nice. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that it'll actually end up being $50. It could possibly end up being $500 or $5,000. I don't think either of those are likely, but it's possible.

As for flexibility, I pay my own insurance (being unemployed atm). When I signed up, there were a slew of options I could go through. What's covered, what's not, deductible, co-pay, all sorts of stuff. I picked a bare-bones policy because I'm a healthy young man with very low odds of needing frequent visits or odd procedures. When I got married, we changed the policy to add my wife and to cover maternity (basic common sense), but left the rest of it alone. As for variability, if we didn't like the company we have now, we could switch to any number of other companies. Both of those are going to be reduced under every plan I've seen from the Dems so far.

That being said, I haven't actually seen this "gov't option alongside private options" plan. Can you link any details?

 

NOG - When we had our 1st child, the insurance company put us thru the ringer. We basically never use our insurance, as we never have health issues *Knock on wood*. We are ideal clients for them .But when we choose our hospital/Doctor, we were told they were in network. Funny thing is, the baby was pre-mature 7 weeks and the Neo-Natal-Intensive-Care unit of the hospital was out of network. Hunh??? How could that be? But if we pulled our kid out of there, we would be footing the whole bill, because the doctors recommend that as a bad option. What a load of crap. Then my wife's wound from the C-section doesn't heal right. So, the Dr. tells us we have to go to their Wound-Care department. Again, if we don't, we eat the entire bill. So we do and guess what? They are out of network also. The system is a giant Eff me in my Ar$E sham. Bend over and like it! It needs to be changed. They are thousands of people with similar stories. Flexible? The only flexibility was me in above said position....

 

Blades, that tells me you got a piss-poor network. Mind you, I've never gone through that myself, so I don't know that mine is any different, but I plan to actually do research before that comes (i.e. make sure we're actually going to facilities that are covered).

 

That's the catch, we were originally told we were covered by both the HR department of my wife's workplace, who provides us the insurance and also by the insurer themselves. Then things change when the bills start arriving. That's the case for many, as i have researched this issue in several forums. Change is needed. I am all for Free Markets, but when they are abused, only the highest of authorities can put a stop to it. Especially in the insurance and financial sectors. Insurance is one of the two cases where it happened and the Fed is the only authority to right the ship. I just hope they don't sink it while trying to do so. But we are sinking as it is, so SOMETHING has to change.

 

And Blades story is not unique. I actually pay extra for the premium insurance plan from work. When our son was born, my out of pocket expense was still close to $1,000 - and it was just a standard delivery. My son didn't need any extraodinary treatment, and my wife had a regular vaginal birth - no C-Section or special circumstances. As a professional who earns a decent salary, I could eat that cost, but for a family living from paycheck to paycheck, that's a hefty bill.

All I can tell you NOG, is it would probably be better if you found work before you have kids, as you may not be pleased with the bill you'd get when the baby arrives, even if you have pretty good insurance.

 

Oh, I fully intend to, don't worry. If nothing else, the children themselves are pricey.

Blades, I would have started talking about sueing. False advertizing if nothing else.

 

We looked into that option and were pretty much shut down, with the added costs being too much for us in case we lost. Plus, that requires a lot of time and with a newborn in hand, well.... just not feasible. The insurance companies know this too, hence it's one of the reasons they will bleed you.

 

Oh, Blades, I wasn't talking about actually sueing, just talking about it. Very loudly. Right in front of the insurance agent. That tends to get people to cut the BS. Not always, as some see the court costs as less then the cost of doing it right, but often.

 

Tried it NOG, to no avail. Trust me, I can get really loud, really fast when aggravted. It is great when used effectively on a car salesmen, but the insurer has heard it all before. They know where they stand and lord it over you. Nothing you can do about it, except for to not pay, but then they will get you on the back end, for much more if you try that route. Bad idea.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-the-public-option-matters/

 

Two things. One, that doesn't actually talk about any plan, just criticizing criticism. Is there a plan that both preserves the private option and provides a public option? Two is this:

I take that "individual mandate" to mean mandated coverage, that you have to buy it from someone. Why would that be required for reform to work? A public option can be entirely optional and still survive, and private options have done just fine without a mandate. More, if regulation is passed on the private options, it won't matter whether they're mandated or not, they'll still be regulated. I don't see any need for a mandate of any kind.

 

I'm not sure that this is even possible. A private plan will never be able to compete on price and therefore would have to compete on a different level. In situations like this the natural different level is quality. That opens up an entirely different can of worms as there will be plenty of people who will not be happy if "the rich" and I use that term loosely are able to buy better care then everyone else.

An example of this is health clubs. Everyone knows that the YMCA is the cheapest club in town. That is because they are a charity and don't have to pay taxes, and don't have a profit motive. This infuriates the private health clubs such as Gold's Gym as they do have a profit motive and have to pay taxes on their income. Gold's is considerably more expensive, but many people are willing to pay it as the equipment and facilities tend to be far superior then what you get at a YMCA.

Now imagine this in healthcare. What if there is a private hospital with private doctors that do not take the "public plan"? How much would you be willing to pay to belong to it for you and your family if the quality of care is better and there weren't any waiting times? I know I would have to think long and hard about it.