Posted on 02/10/2005 7:46:33 AM PST by MedNole
LA JOLLA ---- Two state assemblymen told health officials in La Jolla on Tuesday that they plan to propose a sweeping health-care reform package in Sacramento on Thursday that would likely require all Californians to have health insurance.
State Assemblymen Joe Nation, D-Marin, and Dr. Keith Richman, R-Chatsworth, told health officials who gathered at UC San Diego to discuss the future of health care that they had been working on the comprehensive reform package that would "shake up the status quo," for more than a year.
Health-care officials, meanwhile, representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, county health services, academics and think-tank groups said California's, and the nation's, health-care system was broken and costs are spiraling out of control ---- in part because too many people don't have health insurance.
Officials said people without health insurance, or not enough health insurance, can't pay for their medical coverage.
That, they said, forces insurers, hospitals and doctors to try to make up shortfalls by passing the costs on to patients who have health insurance ---- an action that contributes to a continuing upward spiral in the cost of health care for everyone.
Neither assemblyman would go into the details of exactly what their "multi-bill" plan would entail.
But they strongly hinted that it would, if passed, require all Californians to have health-insurance coverage ----- just like car insurance.
"The system is crumbling," Richman said. "It's 6.4 million people (in California) who are currently not in the system who are not contributing to the financial stability of our entire health-care system."
Officials said that health-care costs in California have risen to $150 billion, and that the annual health-care costs for a family of four is roughly $10,000.
Richman and health experts on the panel of experts at Tuesday's seminar hosted by the Rand Corp. and the Communications Institute said there were multiple reasons why health-care costs continue to rapidly increase.
Those reasons include:
State and federal health insurance for the poor ---- Medi-Cal and Medicare ---- are too complicated, need to be simplified and "streamlined," and do not pay doctors and hospitals enough to cover medical service.
The cost of prescription drugs, pushed by incessant television marketing, continues to rise at double-digit percentages each year.
That patients over-use expensive drugs ---- rather than generics ---- and medical treatments, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging and surgical procedures such as "stomach stapling," that they do not necessarily need.
That a significant portion of California's, and the nation's, population is getting older, meaning they need and use health-care services more often.
That expensive technological advancements such as hip, knee and other joint replacements continue to be used more and more.
In addition, Dana Goldman, a senior economist with the Rand Corp., and others said people are living longer than ever before, giving them a chance to be stricken with aging illnesses such as heart and lung disease that are often expensive to treat.
Michael Murphy, president and chief executive officer of Sharp Healthcare, said, "The system isn't working ... only one-third of hospitals in the state are making money. There have been eight hospital closures in the state of California in the last six months."
Surprisingly, Goldman said, many people who do not have health insurance are not poor.
He said recent studies show that more than one-third of the population who are uninsured have income levels that are twice the federal poverty level.
Those same studies showed that 55 percent of those who are uninsured are young ---- between the ages of 18 and 34.
San Diego's Dr. Bob Hertzka, president of the California Medical Association, said the association believes that a partial solution is for the government to mandate "individual health insurance coverage" ---- meaning that everyone in the state would be required to pay for health insurance.
Goldman said that could possibly be just for "catastrophic coverage," to start out with, just to prevent hospitals from having to eat the cost of expensive treatment for uninsured people who suffer traumatic car wrecks or serious illnesses.
Richman, meanwhile, said he agreed with all the observations at Tuesday's seminar. He said the legislative package he and Nation plan to unveil Thursday would be far-reaching and would not "just be talking about a mandate for universal coverage."
"When I started in the Legislature in 2000-2001, health care was a crisis," Richman said. "And it's only gotten worse. I really believe that this is the opportunity to make some real changes in our health-care system. We're going to roll out something on Thursday ... I think it will shake up the system."
You realize that people without insurance are receiving emergency care for free when they don't pay their bills. Rather than refuse to treat them, if we require everyone to have a minimal level of indemnity coverage, then it prevents the 44 million uninsured Americans from leeching off the rest of us.
Did you have to ask? The article explains that someone has to pay for those injured in car accidents. If car insurance is mandated in California, then the author conveniently forgot the words, "illegal aliens".
I don't follow you. The policies they are talking about are minimal indemnity policies that have $5,000 deductibles. They only cover catastrophic expenses. This PREVENTS the uninsured from being parasites on the health care system.
Well, they could choose not to treat these people, since they know they'll never be paid for their services. However, in a civilized society, we aren't willing to let people die who can't afford treatment. Therefore, make them carry an indemnity policy, so when they need treatment, YOU and I as taxpayers won't have to pay for it.
Ahem.
Well, the law always applies only to law abiding citizens. Citizens who disobey the law are: not law abiding citizens.
But how are "they" going to make these folks get this policy? i.e. what happens to them if they don't get the policy?
Don't you bloody well get it? How in the hell is the state going to enforce the payment of the premium. Or haven't you thought that far?
Communists??
Why, because I want the uninsured to be responsible for their own health care, instead of leeching off of me? Do you realize how much we spend providing ER and hospital care for people who are NEVER going to pay for it? Indemnity plans with $5,000 deductibles are less than $100 per month. They shouldn't be forced to buy any more coverage than this, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment when they show up at the hospital.
Bill Mexico, or at least take it out of the money we already give them.
There is a lot seriously wrong with this idea.
They say in the article that insurance coverage for a family of four nowadays is around $10,000.
So, let's say for one person it's $2500 (vast underestimate).
At minimum wage they earn around $10,000 minus FICA of $700 thus $9,300.
Minus $2,500 leaves $6,700 to live on.
Do you think they'd have money for co-pays prescriptions or deductibles? IOW the poorest folk would be forced to subsidize health care they couldn't afford to use.
That is what agravates me. My wife and one child have had accidents where the investigating officer clearly marked it was the other drivers fault, yet my premiums go up. That is such a crock or crap. If you are not at fault the insurance company should not be allowed to even store that information. I know our state does. You permanent driving record reflects accidents not your fault as well. BS.
What is the purpose of assigning blame if you are punished as well?
I can see the underwriters now...hmmm...give me your crack heads, your uninsurables, your terninally ill, your mental cases...now how's that going to affect the premiums of the good risk clients. Oh, we can jack up their rates sky high...they'll pay it because they are responsible citizens...hmmm...presto... defacto universal healthcare
You can tie it to driver's licenses, for one. Require proof of indemnity health insurance coverage, the same way you require liability insurance. Or, you could require all employees to have a minimum level of coverage. Employers would have to submit proof that all of their employees are covered by a catastrophic policy.
And just how are they going to enforce this? How are they going to force th average street crack addict to pay up?
On the surface, it looks like a good plan, but underneath you are getting exactly what Canada has in a sense; a pro-rated health care plan, where those with no money pay no premiums, while those with money pay theirs and then some.
They will force insurance companies to do this, eventually driving all but one out of business, and there you have it, a single ratepayer system, FORCED on you.
This study claims insurance for a family of 4 in the USA is around $10,000, or $2500 each. That's cheap compared to Canada's, where a single person, earning $60,000 pays about 18,000 a year for his through forced taxation. The Canuck is forced to pay the premium for 7 people.
Stop these frivolous law suits, that will go a long way towards keeps health care costs down in the USA.
I'd much rather pay my own premioum, not everyone elses.
If they say government run medicaide is expensive now, just wait until the whole country is on it after that one last insurance company collapses and the government has to take over. America's worst nightmare will come to pass, Canadian style crappy health care!
This PREVENTS the uninsured from being parasites on the health care system.
At first. When they "can't afford it" the State will then be "forced" to fund the coverage. The proposal is designed to get those like you to fall for it. Further, it also subsidizes the middleman, in this case, the insurance companies.
They only cover catastrophic expenses.
What's the cap, sirrah? If a kid splatters himself on a motorcycle will an impoverished family let him go or will the insurer step in and make it a lifetime disability case that raises the rate base? You need to learn more about how insurance companies use socialized risk to cash in.
Forced! What kind of "Force"?
You only get one guess....
And I'm thinking you don't need it....
Nobody wants to force these people to get full-blown health insurance. Rather, they would have to have indemnity policies, where they pay the first $5,000 of their annual health care expenses out of pocket. These policies are really cheap...Less than $40 a month for me.
No, it makes it worse.
Low income folks will haveless ability to pay for co-pays prescriptions and deductibles. More will end up in ERS and we all end up paying more.
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.