Posted on 06/08/2005 10:58:34 AM PDT by QQQQQ
sounds good, sf4. The problem is that we are close to a border between two states. The closest best hospital is in the "other" state. He needs two specialists, one for Parkinson's, one for Adrenal hyper-aldosteronism. One in our state, one in the other.
The local yokels are worthless. I kinda think we should move 17 hours away to live near our son in Minnesota, where the libs would make sure we get "care".
He loves it here. Maybe we should just chuck it all, and die when God calls us home, and not bother with the medical system.
"Medicare and Medicaid are notorious for paying less than the true cost of service"
These two LBJ social programs are the reason for our health insurance mess. Insurance companies base what they pay on what Medicare/Medicaid will reimburse and the doctors, hospitals, et al. have to eat the rest. Thanks, Great Society!
Hillary Health Care!
The MSM is creating "news" stories directly from hillary's press releases.
The states make auto insurance mandatory. Why can't they do the same for Health insurance?
Cost-shifting, IMO, was an effective way for the medical system to cover the care of paupers. But as medical care costs rise, it will become untenable.
One thing that is tough to face for the resentful public is that their medical care is far better than it used to be--the treatments are much more effective. Just look at survival rates for cancers, and the reduction of the crippling effects of heart disease. More and more surgery is handled by nifty little miniature gadgets that make for smaller incisions and quicker healing times.
In short--it gets better and better, and more and more expensive.
Medical care is unique among consumer goods in that the consumer has no choices as per quality. That is--you can buy an old clunker to drive, or you can choose to buy a sleek upper-end Mercedes. But in medical care, you can only buy the Mercedes. There is only one kind of medical care available--the newest, brightest and best.
You did not mention the huge costs we incur in supporting the lawyer class--not just in legal fees and settlements, but in the defensiveness of hospital administrations. They sure won't risk buying anything but the Mercedes, even when the old clunker would do just fine!! It's a matter of demonstrating "good faith" in court. There are many older treatments that could be used to save costs that would not result in poorer quality, just less sparkle and whizzbang.
In short, provide a legal safe harbor for cost-consciousness.
"We owe a lot of this to the tort lawyers. Set some limits on them and a lot of hospital expenses could be slashed."
From an article by Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.): Since 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) has required emergency rooms to provide care to people regardless of their ability to pay. There is no federal reimbursement for EMTALA treatment. The cost is imposed on the hospitals and doctors that provide the services. It is also imposed on all Americans in the form of higher healthcare and insurance costs.
Inviting as it may be to some to blame tort lawyers for everything, the villian in this tale is the usual suspect: the socialistic government in D.C. that we keep in power. We already have national healthcare for the "poor" and the "aged". Everyone else is carrying the load. You can see this when you get your hospital bill and you have been charged $50.00 for a box of Kleenex in your room. The solution is to get the government out of health care. But that would mean the loss of a lot of votes for our legislators who buy votes with our tax dollars and it is also opposed by most of the medical establishment. (It's true that the medical groups want the government not to tell them how to run their practice, but they're all for the federal dollars that flow into the system from Medicare, Medicaid, etc. They just want the reimbursement rates increased.)
Using the numbers in this article we are getting a bargain wth 44 million uninsured only costing $48b/yr. If health insurance costs $4,000/yr/person, that would be $200b/yr. :)
Beautiful!!! That's what the response should be.
Medicare and Medicaid are the worst plans available. If the ~$600 billion spent by them were transferred to the private sector via a voucher system, much better coverage could be provided universally. I am not opposed to universal coverage per se, just government-run universal coverage.
My COBRA insurance from my last job will soon expire. I have not been able to get a job since, and I can't figure out why. I suspect it is due to age. I've even applied to HomeDepot and followed up with no response.
The only way my wife and I can get affordable insurance is for one of us to have a regular job. This has not worked out. The catastrophic insurance available from the state (IL) will cost us $1100 per month and $5,000 deductible- which is unaffordable.
I fear we will soon enter the ranks of the uninsured until I reach 65 in seven years.
Pray for good health and don't get old !!
Vicious circle:
The higher the cost of insurance, the more people who drop it.
And the more people who drop out, the higher the cost of insurance
To stop it, insurance premiums could be indexed to income . . . .
Or an income tax rebate/deduction geared to insurance payments and family income.
That would enable more people to afford it, stop the vicious circle, and possibly even bring the rates down.
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.