How to solve the Health Care delimma.......

[ABikerSailor]

You know.....when I retired in 2002, I decided that I was going to do whatever the hell I wanted to, work when I wanted to, and basically be retired.

Consequently, I watch an OBSCENE amount of news. I watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX (when I want to laugh), BBC America, the Debka File, as well as various internet sources (Google, Yahoo).

So.......I hear a lot of the bitching from both sides.

Now, the Dems want a public option. Something that anyone can get, and it's cheap.

The Reps are worried that the insurance companies won't be able to stay solvent, as they don't want to insure people with "pre-existing conditions", as that would cost a lot of money.

So, I thought.......why not make it like car insurance? That way, you could still have your choice, and you would be able to pick and choose your doctors (Reps), as well as have a low cost option for those that are poor and middle class (Dems).

Now.........just like before you get car insurance, they run your driving record. Same deal here.......before going to get health insurance, you get a complete physical, and that is your starting point. Oh yeah.........you can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition, but, if you are, then you should be able to fall under the Government option (Medicare/Medicaid) if you are unable to be insured. Kinda like welfare.

Just like car insurance (at least some), if you don't have a wreck, and don't get many tickets, your insurance rates go down, but you still have the same coverage.

Every time you renew your health insurance (like you do for your car), you get another physical. If you are going downhill (smoking too much, obesity, etc), your rates go up accordingly. If you are the same, your rates stay the same. If you start a better lifestyle (losing weight, working out, exercising, etc.), then your rates go DOWN.

There is another side benefit incidentally.........what if you live in a place that has been contaminated like Love Canal? Well......the people who live there would eventually get tired of paying high insurance rates, and they would mobilize the city government to clean up the mess, resulting in lower health insurance rates for the entire town.

Or........they could move to a healthier area.

Would also eliminate the need for a "sin tax" on stuff like soda and fast food.

What do you guys (and ladies) think?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You know.....when I retired in 2002, I decided that I was going to do whatever the hell I wanted to, work when I wanted to, and basically be retired.

Consequently, I watch an OBSCENE amount of news. I watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX (when I want to laugh), BBC America, the Debka File, as well as various internet sources (Google, Yahoo).

So.......I hear a lot of the bitching from both sides.

Now, the Dems want a public option. Something that anyone can get, and it's cheap.

The Reps are worried that the insurance companies won't be able to stay solvent, as they don't want to insure people with "pre-existing conditions", as that would cost a lot of money.

So, I thought.......why not make it like car insurance? That way, you could still have your choice, and you would be able to pick and choose your doctors (Reps), as well as have a low cost option for those that are poor and middle class (Dems).

Now.........just like before you get car insurance, they run your driving record. Same deal here.......before going to get health insurance, you get a complete physical, and that is your starting point. Oh yeah.........you can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition, but, if you are, then you should be able to fall under the Government option (Medicare/Medicaid) if you are unable to be insured. Kinda like welfare.

Just like car insurance (at least some), if you don't have a wreck, and don't get many tickets, your insurance rates go down, but you still have the same coverage.

Every time you renew your health insurance (like you do for your car), you get another physical. If you are going downhill (smoking too much, obesity, etc), your rates go up accordingly. If you are the same, your rates stay the same. If you start a better lifestyle (losing weight, working out, exercising, etc.), then your rates go DOWN.

There is another side benefit incidentally.........what if you live in a place that has been contaminated like Love Canal? Well......the people who live there would eventually get tired of paying high insurance rates, and they would mobilize the city government to clean up the mess, resulting in lower health insurance rates for the entire town.

Or........they could move to a healthier area.

Would also eliminate the need for a "sin tax" on stuff like soda and fast food.

What do you guys (and ladies) think?

what about those with a pre-existing condition who are getting worse no matter what they do?.....and needing more treatment they are no doubt getting more expensive to maintain.....

 

[pete]

Auto insurers pull your credit and if its poor charge more ... so the free loaders will be paying more finally?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well.....for those with a pre existing condition, let the insurance companies do what they said they would.

Spread out the cost among all the people, as the more people you have policies written on, the cheaper it is for everyone else.

I'm just calling them on what they said......

 

[CryGlennCry]

Well.....for those with a pre existing condition, let the insurance companies do what they said they would.

Spread out the cost among all the people, as the more people you have policies written on, the cheaper it is for everyone else.

I'm just calling them on what they said......

I think it's a pretty good idea.

As complicated as this all gets in the papers and on the TV, at its core, it really isn't.
Insurance companies must not be allowed to be in total control.
They can not continue to hold all the cards.
To make obscene profits by giving shotty care.
Or ridiculously excessive tests.
Or dropping the needy at their neediest moment.

We need to be able to shop around.
Have a choice.

We must be able to have insurance regardless of employers.
Or health.
Or age.

We ALL must be able to see a doctor.
BEFORE it's life-threatening.

And NO ONE should end up bankrupt behind an illness.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know.....when I retired in 2002, I decided that I was going to do whatever the hell I wanted to, work when I wanted to, and basically be retired.

Consequently, I watch an OBSCENE amount of news. I watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX (when I want to laugh), BBC America, the Debka File, as well as various internet sources (Google, Yahoo).

So.......I hear a lot of the bitching from both sides.

Now, the Dems want a public option. Something that anyone can get, and it's cheap.

The Reps are worried that the insurance companies won't be able to stay solvent, as they don't want to insure people with "pre-existing conditions", as that would cost a lot of money.

So, I thought.......why not make it like car insurance? That way, you could still have your choice, and you would be able to pick and choose your doctors (Reps), as well as have a low cost option for those that are poor and middle class (Dems).

Now.........just like before you get car insurance, they run your driving record. Same deal here.......before going to get health insurance, you get a complete physical, and that is your starting point. Oh yeah.........you can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition, but, if you are, then you should be able to fall under the Government option (Medicare/Medicaid) if you are unable to be insured. Kinda like welfare.

Just like car insurance (at least some), if you don't have a wreck, and don't get many tickets, your insurance rates go down, but you still have the same coverage.

Every time you renew your health insurance (like you do for your car), you get another physical. If you are going downhill (smoking too much, obesity, etc), your rates go up accordingly. If you are the same, your rates stay the same. If you start a better lifestyle (losing weight, working out, exercising, etc.), then your rates go DOWN.

There is another side benefit incidentally.........what if you live in a place that has been contaminated like Love Canal? Well......the people who live there would eventually get tired of paying high insurance rates, and they would mobilize the city government to clean up the mess, resulting in lower health insurance rates for the entire town.

Or........they could move to a healthier area.

Would also eliminate the need for a "sin tax" on stuff like soda and fast food.

What do you guys (and ladies) think?

what about those with a pre-existing condition who are getting worse no matter what they do?.....and needing more treatment they are no doubt getting more expensive to maintain.....

Seems he covered that with a 'public option' type of insurance for those with pre-existing and debilitating diseases.

 

[garyd]

Okay first off the insurance companies don't even begin to hold all the cards. The more things you mandate that insurance companies cover in their policies the higher the cost will be. If you really want to cover more people. The real problem is that Your insurance is paid for for the most part by your employer.

2nd For all too many people with the cost of Cobra being what it is that basically means your ability to sell your services to the highest bidder is sharply limited because of delays in getting back on insurance coverage when you change employers. It is very nearly serfdom once removed.

We need to find some way to uncouple your health insurance from your employment. This would mean people could by the insurance they need without having to buy coverage for things they neither need nor want.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay first off the insurance companies don't even begin to hold all the cards. The more things you mandate that insurance companies cover in their policies the higher the cost will be. If you really want to cover more people. The real problem is that Your insurance is paid for for the most part by your employer.

2nd For all too many people with the cost of Cobra being what it is that basically means your ability to sell your services to the highest bidder is sharply limited because of delays in getting back on insurance coverage when you change employers. It is very nearly serfdom once removed.

We need to find some way to uncouple your health insurance from your employment. This would mean people could by the insurance they need without having to buy coverage for things they neither need nor want.

Universal health care, Canadian style?

Look, there are a bunch of differant ways of skinning this cat. All the industrial nation excepting us have done this better than we do.

Most of their health systems results are better than ours, and at less cost. Japan's is only half the cost, with the highest longevity of any nation.

All cover all their citizens. We do not.

And in none of these nations do you have hundreds of thousands of families going bankrupt because of medical bills. Going bankrupt even when the majority of them have medical insurance. In fact, in none of these nations do you have any families going bankrupt because of medical bills.

However you do it, we need to emulate some of these methods.

 

[Missourian]

Well.....for those with a pre existing condition, let the insurance companies do what they said they would.

Spread out the cost among all the people, as the more people you have policies written on, the cheaper it is for everyone else.

I'm just calling them on what they said......

I think it's a pretty good idea.

As complicated as this all gets in the papers and on the TV, at its core, it really isn't.
Insurance companies must not be allowed to be in total control.
They can not continue to hold all the cards.
To make obscene profits by giving shotty care.
Or ridiculously excessive tests.
Or dropping the needy at their neediest moment.

We need to be able to shop around.
Have a choice.

We must be able to have insurance regardless of employers.
Or health.
Or age.

We ALL must be able to see a doctor.
BEFORE it's life-threatening.

And NO ONE should end up bankrupt behind an illness.

Insurance company survive on the slimmest of margins.

They post a 3.4% profit.

"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent."

Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
​

 

[CryGlennCry]

Well.....for those with a pre existing condition, let the insurance companies do what they said they would.

Spread out the cost among all the people, as the more people you have policies written on, the cheaper it is for everyone else.

I'm just calling them on what they said......

I think it's a pretty good idea.

As complicated as this all gets in the papers and on the TV, at its core, it really isn't.
Insurance companies must not be allowed to be in total control.
They can not continue to hold all the cards.
To make obscene profits by giving shotty care.
Or ridiculously excessive tests.
Or dropping the needy at their neediest moment.

We need to be able to shop around.
Have a choice.

We must be able to have insurance regardless of employers.
Or health.
Or age.

We ALL must be able to see a doctor.
BEFORE it's life-threatening.

And NO ONE should end up bankrupt behind an illness.

Insurance company survive on the slimmest of margins.

They post a 3.4% profit.

"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent."

Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
​

Wow.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to defend this obviously fucked up system.
Ok buddy...I'm gonna assume that this 3.4% profit is correct. (it doesn't really fit what I've seen, but whatever)
That means after everything is paid for, the ridiculous Board member payments,
the trips, the advertising, administrative costs, everything. Aetna, for example, pulled in 8 BIL. Cigna did 13.
AET: Income Statement for AETNA INC. NEW - Yahoo! Finance
CI: Income Statement for CIGNA CP - Yahoo! Finance
And this is all hunky-dorey for you?
No on is saying health insurance is the only problem.
It's the for profit health industry.
It's our whole system.
Why not take aspects of someone who's doing it right, like Japan?

 

[auditor0007]

Okay first off the insurance companies don't even begin to hold all the cards. The more things you mandate that insurance companies cover in their policies the higher the cost will be. If you really want to cover more people. The real problem is that Your insurance is paid for for the most part by your employer.

2nd For all too many people with the cost of Cobra being what it is that basically means your ability to sell your services to the highest bidder is sharply limited because of delays in getting back on insurance coverage when you change employers. It is very nearly serfdom once removed.

We need to find some way to uncouple your health insurance from your employment. This would mean people could by the insurance they need without having to buy coverage for things they neither need nor want.

Having employers in control of our health insurance is a major problem. Another problem this creates is that when employers lay people off, they are more likely to lay off older workers first, because their insurance premiums are determined by the average age of their workers. The more they can reduce the average age, the more they reduce their costs.

This still doesn't address the problem with those with pre-existing conditions. But it would put everyone else on a more balanced playing field as rates would be the same for everyone. The government could possibly supplement the insurance companies for accepting those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[auditor0007]

I think it's a pretty good idea.

As complicated as this all gets in the papers and on the TV, at its core, it really isn't.
Insurance companies must not be allowed to be in total control.
They can not continue to hold all the cards.
To make obscene profits by giving shotty care.
Or ridiculously excessive tests.
Or dropping the needy at their neediest moment.

We need to be able to shop around.
Have a choice.

We must be able to have insurance regardless of employers.
Or health.
Or age.

We ALL must be able to see a doctor.
BEFORE it's life-threatening.

And NO ONE should end up bankrupt behind an illness.

Insurance company survive on the slimmest of margins.

They post a 3.4% profit.

"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent."

Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
​

Wow.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to defend this obviously fucked up system.
Ok buddy...I'm gonna assume that this 3.4% profit is correct. (it doesn't really fit what I've seen, but whatever)
That means after everything is paid for, the ridiculous Board member payments,
the trips, the advertising, administrative costs, everything. Aetna, for example, pulled in 8 BIL. Cigna did 13.
AET: Income Statement for AETNA INC. NEW - Yahoo! Finance
CI: Income Statement for CIGNA CP - Yahoo! Finance
And this is all hunky-dorey for you?
No on is saying health insurance is the only problem.
It's the for profit health industry.
It's our whole system.
Why not take aspects of someone who's doing it right, like Japan?

It's not the profit margin that is the problem; it's the administrative costs on both sides dealing with the insurance companies. Between the insurers and the healthcare providers having to deal with the insurers, roughly 40% of our healthcare dollars are going to things other than actual healthcare.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well.....for those with a pre existing condition, let the insurance companies do what they said they would.

Spread out the cost among all the people, as the more people you have policies written on, the cheaper it is for everyone else.

I'm just calling them on what they said......

I think it's a pretty good idea.

As complicated as this all gets in the papers and on the TV, at its core, it really isn't.
Insurance companies must not be allowed to be in total control.
They can not continue to hold all the cards.
To make obscene profits by giving shotty care.
Or ridiculously excessive tests.
Or dropping the needy at their neediest moment.

We need to be able to shop around.
Have a choice.

We must be able to have insurance regardless of employers.
Or health.
Or age.

We ALL must be able to see a doctor.
BEFORE it's life-threatening.

And NO ONE should end up bankrupt behind an illness.

Insurance company survive on the slimmest of margins.

They post a 3.4% profit.

"Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent."

Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
​

You know, I've been told by my family that "figures don't lie, but watch how liars figure."

Basically that means that you can bend facts and figures to reflect anything you wish to have them reflect.

Take the 3.4 percent profit margin. Yes........they DO only make 3.4 percent profit, but, that is 3.4 percent profit on SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE. Remember, 1 percent of 1 million is still 10,000 (thanks veritas), and we've got over 300 million people in this country!

Now........when the insurance companies saw the prices going up for healthcare, as well as the "streamlining" craze that a lot of companies went through, they decided to lower their operating costs, and then, laid off a lot of people.

But they didn't stop there. They started to look for people with "pre-existing" conditions, and, if they could prove that the condition existed before, they could drop them and save a bunch of money. Oh yeah........sick people pull money out of the system, healthy people just pay in, which is why they drop you if you have a pre-existing condition.

Incidentally, did you hear that some insurance companies consider domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore will not cover women who end up in the hospital because their significant other kicked the crap outta them for not washing the dishes properly.

Yeah......tell me again how innocent and pure the insurance companies are.

They DO hold all the cards.

 

[veritas]

Take the 3.4 percent profit margin. Yes........they DO only make 3.4 percent profit, but, that is 3.4 percent profit on SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE. Remember, 1 percent of 1 million is still 300,000.

Where I come from, 1% of one million is 10k.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Take the 3.4 percent profit margin. Yes........they DO only make 3.4 percent profit, but, that is 3.4 percent profit on SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE. Remember, 1 percent of 1 million is still 300,000.

Where I come from, 1% of one million is 10k.

Oops. Was thinking of something else while listening to the tv and typing this. Thanks for the correction.

But.....the statement still stands, as that is pretty much how the insurance companies stated they would be able to absorb costs.

The trouble is though, they don't want a public option. And why not? Look at it like welfare, Medicare/Medicaid for people that can't afford health insurance (public option), is pretty much what we do for people who are unemployed or on welfare.

So why all this resistance?

 

[dseger]

Regarding the orginal post, many of the points are very good, one thing to avoid is having insurance companies greatly raise rates on an individual because of an illness. Everyone in a certain age group and with the same deduductible amount could have the same rates, maybe an exception could be giving individuals with healthy living choices a 10 percent discount or so, but insurance companies shouldn't be able terminate people because of illness or make their rates extremely higher. By the way, i posted a thread A public option that doesn't directly compete with private insurance, thats my view on getting everyone insured, having competition, and letting people keep their current plan.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Most of their health systems results are better than ours, and at less cost. Japan's is only half the cost, with the highest longevity of any nation.

As I understand it, most Japanese corporations have a mandatory exercise regime.
Perhaps rather than mandating coverage, the Feds should mandate exercise, outlaw tobacco alcohol and soda, force people to eat only healthy foods (thus ending our importation of chocolate)
This alone would drive the cost of health care for the nation down to manageable levels.
Perhaps we could even euthanize the elderly, at least up to the point that I'm elderly then I'll want that policy changed.

I hope pointing out this is Satire is unnecessary

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most of their health systems results are better than ours, and at less cost. Japan's is only half the cost, with the highest longevity of any nation.

As I understand it, most Japanese corporations have a mandatory exercise regime.
Perhaps rather than mandating coverage, the Feds should mandate exercise, outlaw tobacco alcohol and soda, force people to eat only healthy foods (thus ending our importation of chocolate)
This alone would drive the cost of health care for the nation down to manageable levels.
Perhaps we could even euthanize the elderly, at least up to the point that I'm elderly then I'll want that policy changed.

I hope pointing out this is Satire is unnecessary

To most people on USMB, you wouldn't have to point it out (Charles Bass, Sunni Man and Yukon are exceptions to this), but to the politicians in Washington DC? Some of those dumb fuckers are actually trying to call for this!

Incidentally, most of 'em (not all, but most) are Republicans.

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole point is that other nations are getting far better results for less money. Even little Costa Rica. So why don't we have a look at what other nations are doing? We are talking about peoples lives here, not ideological talking points.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The whole point is that other nations are getting far better results for less money. Even little Costa Rica. So why don't we have a look at what other nations are doing? We are talking about peoples lives here, not ideological talking points.

My point is that the Federal government has a less than stellar (abysmal would not be too strong a term) record for solving social problems.
Alcohol causes drunkenness and Violence. Attempted solution - Prohibition. Result - even more violence with no apparent reduction in drunkenness.
Elderly have little money on retiring. Proposed solution - Social security. Result - any elderly relying on the SS check is quickly disabused of the notion they get adequate money.
Poor Children are hungry. Proposed Solution - Welfare. Result - Massive taxes and Poor children are hungry.
Feel free to disagree with this record, but it is fairly clear to me.

So what are we to do? Truthfully, a national exercise program would probably be both less expensive and MORE effective than anything else. Except for all those who would decry it as an infringement on their rights. Though I wonder why the taxes to support a federal health care plan are not decried by those very people as equally infringing on the rights of workers to keep their wages? The question then becomes; since someone will have their rights infringed upon, why not try the more effective less expensive alternative?