Posted on 01/28/2017 9:15:41 AM PST by Auntie Mame
Re: continuous-coverage
Agree. It could actually be a BENEFIT offered in a free market system.
Yep, tort reform is absolutely necessary. Our health insurance market should be focused on patients and doctors, not lawyers.
All true! I would also add that the re-importation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices into the US at current world prices be allowed. Anti-trust laws being applied to the ENTIRE medical industry(which they are under NOW)!!......which makes this potential legislation VERY troubling-— ‘Rand Paul has just announced intent to file a bill (which has a bill number, but the text is not public as of the date of this post) that explicitly exempts Health Care providers from anti-trust.
“Anti-Trust Reform for Healthcare”
Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals engaged in negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals provide health care items or services.
This section applies only to health care professionals excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. It would also not apply to contracts or care provided under Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the FEHBP, or the IHS as well as medical and dental care provided to members of the uniformed services and veterans.’
Then, set up clinics where one option for care is First Aid. People who don't have insurance and want to restrict what they pay would have the minimally priced first aid, self-care option to choose.
When all that happens, insurance companies can do what they do best. That would be to scare people into being insured, and to make prices and options attractive so that people will sign up on their own.
Those who can't afford much? Perhaps give them a stipend with which they can make the same choices as everyone else, only have it be enough to only cover catastrophic illness plus the Fist Aid option. I would wager a whole lot of them would pocket the money and sign up for the First Aid option. Anyone who does nothing will have that automatic policy.
There will never be a totally free market in medicine.
The Article I Section 8 patents that provide the profits to fund drug development aren’t going away.
Some care is dangerous. So access to high-radiation CAT scans and nuclear medicine needs to be government regulated.
Drugs are sold on a prescription basis because the FDA believes they are either potentially dangerous, addictive or subject to misuse[antibiotics&hormones].
This is my latest health coverage plan:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3517479/posts
I’ll have an update in a week or two. I’m going to modify the drug coverage subsidy calculations.
Yes, my plan has lots of rules. One sentence can save billions.
Lots of sentences means billions and billions of taxpayer money doesn’t need to be taken by Uncle Sam.
Auto Insurance...... Does not cover Maint.Items, normal wear and tear, Road damage from Pot holes, etc. Auto insurance is mostly Liability coverage mainly against people claiming your car harmed them, or your car caused catastrophic injury to them, etc., The Collision coverage is minimal and they usually raise their rates or drop you should you require them to pay. Thanks for making my point.
Separate the government totally from Medicine and Insurance. The only Constitutional authority is the regulation and guarantee of weights and measures which could be extrapolated into truth in advertising, no more. The cost of medical treatment and medicines would come down radically when the medical dollar no longer has to support hordes of insurance and government agents and bureaucrats and the field is open to competition. Access to “healthcare” will be much closer to universal than any government scheme that can be devised. Costs of most of it will be well within the budgets and capabilities of almost all citizens and the charities will take up the slack though that should not be a consideration of the Government. The Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate personal decisions and welfare. The government is supposed to secure the nation from foreign conquest and interference and to pave the nation with a Rule of Law. The government is not to decide the lives and outcomes of and for its citizens and whoever else it chooses to sequester.
“mandate won’t be enforced”
The government can’t say that because insurers will cite force majeure and terminate their plans.
I trust the Republicans not to enforce the mandates, but they can’t say so officially.
“Add tort reform.”
Someone suggested “loser pays” with respect to attorney fees. I’m fine with this after the pleading stage.
I think though if following a widely accepted guideline would have minimized/eliminated the injury, then the doctor (and his/her insurer) must cough up cash.
“Separate the government totally from Medicine and Insurance.”
Article I Section 8 protected drugs are the very heart of modern medicine, treating arthritis, cancer, HIV and other infections, etc.
Good. Insurance companies should terminate their profit losing plans whether individual or group. The insurance companies are doing this anyway by pulling out of 0-care markets. Insurance companies are not government welfare programs.
The moderate/high income (state to define) high risk/uninsurable individuals should get coverage under state high risk pools. Insurance companies could bid for the business and states could subsidize as much or little as they want. Any subsidization should avoid benefit cliffs so that people will be incentivized to keep working. Let individual states decide on coverage mandates and pre-existing clauses. Let the states do multi state compacts for insurance rules and sales. The constitution gives the states, not the Feds, the power in this area. The Feds should only act to ensure that individual rights and the constitution are being enforced and as you know, there is no constitutional right to health care services or health insurance (although the “annotated constution” has given citizens the right to emergency services via EMTLA etc).
There really are a relatively small number people getting insurance via 0-care marketplace when you compare to Medicaid expansion under 0-care. Most of the expansion under 0-care was via Medicaid which will of couse still exist after an 0-care repeal.
Let Mexico pay for it .......haahahaha
You nailed it. Add MRIs to your list. 3k at the hospital, 1.2k at the ortho office, 600 at the standalone office down the road (and popping up all over the place).
Which is why high-deductible, catastrophic insurance is probably the answer, with secondary insurance for those wanting a lower deductible. Encouraging shopping around since the first 5k or whatever is out of your pocket would solve most of this through market competition.
Do absolutely nothing.
No government involvement whatsoever.
Let the free market fill the gap.
Your suggestions are excellent:
1. Portability of coverage from employer plans;
2. Pre-existing coverage (managed pools and subsidize if necessary);
3. Allow private insurance to sell across state lines (opens up the entire concept of free market competition - better product/lower prices);
4. Subsidize coverage for the poor and disabled.
I think if they only did #3, allow selling of private insurance across state lines, it would be a huge step in the right direction. It might be worth it to just do that one thing and see what happens. #4 is basically already being done.
“”health insurance should be a simple catastrophic plan. Otherwise, pay for basic care””
I believe so too. We all (if we had any) had Major Medical long before changes were made to the current system and it worked pretty darn good. I worked for a company in the early ‘50’s that covered its employees with Major Medical. I had major emergency surgery at the age of 20 and never saw a bill and paid for the doctor appointments out of my pocket at the time of the appointments. The hospital called my employer and the paperwork was done as I was sent off to surgery. I don’t believe we even had insurance cards to carry.
Years later my husband and I had our own business and carried catastrophic insurance only as that’s all we could afford. We saw doctors once a year for checkups and paid for that from our pockets. Didn’t need them for anything else.
Good thread, Auntie Mame....Must be the weather is keeping you inside? LOL!!
Our daughter’s neurologist has stopped taking insurance from his patients - cash only from now on. She’s seen him for 13 years and it’s impossible to get an appointment with a new neurologist now for at least 3 months. It’s not only the public that is fed up with this. It also goes for the doctors.
My husband’s urologist overbooks patients (like an airline) but he says he has to, to make it worthwhile to even open his office. A 3 -3 1/2 hour wait in the waiting room is not unheard of. Very annoying but then we enjoyed having a 15 minute discussion with him about the campaigns and the upcoming election while he did his work - HA! Good to patronize a conservative doctor!
Yep the incentive to use a 1000 dollar solution instead of a 100 dollar solution is pretty big when the government is paying for whichever one the doc wants to choose.
Well, one part of me wants to just deport liberals and let the problem work itself out. But that’s not realistic.
Freedom - People should be able to choose the level of coverage that they want.
Interstate - there is no reason that out-of-state companies can’t sell policies in other states.
Tort Reform - a biggie in the cost of health care, not only in terms of doctor insurance premiums, but also in terms of defensive medicine. Many procedures and tests are done solely to satisfy the legal system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.