We heard over and over again that the insurance companies had largely created the current healthcare “mess”. I have heard from many people how much they hate their insurance companies. I would agree as well. I think the insurance companies have created a middle man that has inflated costs of healthcare. It may have been unintentional, I don’t believe in a grand conspiracy to inflate costs, but it has happened. Why just a few weeks ago, a doctor had prescribed dad a powerful antibiotic to combat an infection he had. The insurance company decided it was unnecessary, and would not pay for it, so dad had to settle for a less powerful drug. Thankfully, it seems to have done the job, and he can continue on in his cancer treatments. So I have no love for insurance companies. They can be very frustrating, as sometimes it seems they do anything and everything they can to keep from paying.
We heard from members of congress, and even President Obama himself that the insurance companies were at fault. So their solution- make everyone buy insurance from the health insurance companies.
Can someone please explain this to me? And I am serious, I have racked my brain trying to figure this out. Seriously, please someone tell me how this makes sense at all?
11 comments:
I completely agree that insurance companies are the big problem with healthcare costs. I also wish that the president and congress had the balls to stand up and make REAL changes.
But be careful Danny. If you're saying that you want to get rid of the "middle man," you surely don't mean that people shouldn't have some kind of back up. No normal person could afford to fight cancer by themselves, for instance.
It almost seems like you're proposing a single-payer system. That's pretty... dare I say it? Liberal?
Interesting...
If by single payer you mean everyone pays for themselves, much like you do when you go grocery shopping then, yes. Insurance is necessary for catastrophic coverage, which would include cancer patients, as well as other high cost treatments for illnesses. I just want to know why if insurance companies are so bad, then why are they forcing everyone to buy insurance from them. I am wondering why you support this bill if you dislike insurance companies so much?
Jon,
Yes. Cut the middle man. I don't need grocery or fast food or oil change insurance, I certainly don't need routine healthcare insurance.
I want all costs posted on a big board like at Burger King.
Appointment costs X
X-Ray costs X
Injection costs X
Please see our medication list for "administered" medication costs
etc
The problem with healthcare is that competition is discouraged at the comsumer/provider level. That means that as a consumer, I have not idea what it costs. Therefore, there is no incentive for competition. Ever notice that BK, McD's, Wendy's, and Hardees are all trying to outdo each other on a dollar burger? Imagine that with office visits, MRI's, Hospital stays...
Kill insurance (catastrophic only)
Breed competition
Everyone wins.
I like your idea, in theory. Do I have your idea straight that you want to abolish insurance companies and then have the government pay for catastophic illness/injury?
I have to ask about the whole "catastrophic only" thing. What's catastrophic? Diabetes? Conjestive heart failure? Asthma?Deafness? Cerebral palsy? Arthritis? Alzheimers?
Even allowing for competition in the marketplace, I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't be able to cover the costs of those illnesses by themselves.
How about pregnancy? Cut the out-of-pocket expense in half. Could you afford your kids' births?
I'm really just trying to get an idea of your concept here.
Jon,
Government pays for nothing. I don't want government involvement of any kind.
Catastrophic only is already a coverage option with all major insurances. They cover anything that is not routine care such as ER, pregnancy, long term illness, cancer, etc.
I guess I really don't see much of a difference between what you want and what already is. Taking your kids to the doctor for an ear infection or getting a physical amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of American healthcare costs.
Okay, just had a thought.
It sounds really nice to give everyone health care, but doesn't that take away the freedom of the doctors? I heard someone once on a show say that we do not have the right to someone else's labor. That made so much sense to me.
On another note, if we had a single payer system, we still have a middle man. It would be called the government. Now we all know how loving, caring, infallible, and pure the government is. I mean our congress is not at all like the big corrupt, evil, insurance companies.
I mean we sure can trust them with our money. Just look at what they have done for social security...I mean welfare...I mean Medicaid...I mean...ahhhhh...I'll get back to you on that.
Remember, "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
Doctors can say they're not accepting new patients anytime they want. They do it all the time.
And I don't think the government should give us everything we need or want. I just think that when a poor person gets sick or hurt, they shouldn't have to die because they can't afford to go the doctor.
Anybody can get up early in the morning and stand in line at LaborReady so he can earn $50 a day loading paper into a compressor (I've done this). 50 bucks a day will pay for food and housing. You can live on that. 50 bucks a day will not cover a stay in a hospital.
You've used your "big government" quote a couple times. How about this one:
"And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple."
Jon,
taking my kids to the doctor costs me $187.50 per week in insurance premiums to start with. That comes to $9,750 per year. Now on top of that add co-pay and prescription costs. This is not a "tiny, tiny fraction" of my costs. It is a huge chunk. Almost 20%.
Now, I know that it costs $80 to take my kids to see the doctor without insurance. I had to squeeze that out of them when we were between insurance. If I take each of my 3 kids to the doctor 3 times a year that comes to $720. Now say that they each get at least one prescription each time at a cost of $50 each that is another $450. If I were to pay my children's care outright I would be out of pocket potentially $1170 per year - a far, far, far cry from $10,000/yr. Now as it stands, if I need emergency care, by law I can't be turned away. But catastrophic care for my entire family was quoted to me last November at $250 per month. That's $3000 per year, add that to my out of pocket costs with no insurance and you still are only putting out less than half of what I do when pay my general insurance premiums. OF course now, if I want to choose that right, it is illegal.
I like your quote. That's a good one and that's why we have our agency. I've got one for you...
“Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor”
and this one...
“Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee”
Catastrophic insurance has never been an option for me. That's why I wasn't incredibly familiar with it. I researched it.
For you and your family, who I assume are a set of healthy people with few visits to the doctors and very few prescriptions or medical expenses, a pay-per-service system would work just fine.
I'm not familiar enough with the current legislation. Doesn't a catastophic insurance plan count as having insurance?
Anyway, I can't get it. Even if I could, it wouldn't save me any money because I have to get insulin, insulin pump supplies, glucose test strips, pacemaker monitoring, and all the doctor visits that go along with two pre-existing conditions. I work at a hospital, and still my healthcare costs consume a large chunk of my income.
I apologize. I am one of those medically expensive people that make your premiums go up.
The system needs to work for everyone. Not just the people that hardly ever use it.
I liked your quotes, too. I'm sure you agree that with agency comes the requisite acceptance of the consequences. I've heard people use the car insurance industry as a comparison. "You don't have to buy car insurance as long as you don't drive."
I'm fine with that. I'm fine with people not getting health insurance. I would only ask this of them: Don't go to the ER when you get sick. Don't expect healthcare if you're not willing to pay into the system.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as upstanding a citizen as you are, so they don't get insurance, and like any other mortal, they end up getting hurt, or sick, or old, and they go to the ER and end up spending billions upon billions of tax-payer dollars.
You can choose not to drive. People get sick, regardless of how much agency they have.
I understand what you are saying about if you choose not to buy health insurance, then don't come to the ER when you are sick.
First- the new bill doesn't give you the choice not to have insurance, so you cannot make the choice that you suggest. But, the problem and cost remains the same with this bill- you can choose to disobey the law and not get insurance, in which case you will pay a penalty to the IRS. I believe the penalty is $695/year or 2.5% of income, whichever is higher. It would be cheaper for me to pay the fine, and then when I get really sick to sign up for health insurance because no one can be denied for preexisting conditions.
Now wouldn't that cost the healthcare industry far more than our current system? Someone diagnosed with cancer and getting hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment only paying say a $500 premium? Then when everything is better, we stop paying for insurance again and just pay the penalty.
This is one of the things wrong with this bill. You admit that you are not very familiar with the legislation- please get familiar with it. You say it may not be perfect, but this bill seems to defeat everything you are suggesting it do. You hate the insurance companies, yet this bill compels everyone to buy insurance from the same companies that we all agree are horrible. You mention that it is necessary because the healthcare system cannot afford to take care of walkins to the ER that don't have insurance, yet the bill makes that worse by implementing a weak penalty that I would suggest encourages people NOT to buy insurance, just when they get sick.
So the bill really sucks, and 58% of the American people agree, liberals and conservatives.
Post a Comment