Health Insurance Industry Still Wants To Cancel Sick People's Coverage

[Disclaimer]

I edited my post after you quoted it so it didn't capture everything, but profit doesn't always equal success.

Is the goal of health care to make people healthy (I think Inya posted that in one of the initial posts), or is the goal to profit from you?

If profit = success, then we should pay a lot more for taxes, so the military can post profits, the infrastructure and highway services can post profits. Every road would be a toll road.... profit shouldn't always be the goal, especially in the healthcare field. The goal should be HEALTHY citizens.

[r1crusher]

Then you understand my point...less government. It's supposed to be a government of the people for the people.

200+ years ago was about as close to that statement as it gets anymore.

We have plenty of other failed programs started by our government. I DO NOT want to see a healthcare system created by our government given their track record. Could it work, sure....but for how long before loop holes are found, scandles set in and it comes crumbling down.

Our entire governmental system needs an overhaul. I pay plenty to this country already and I don't need them telling me how to live my life any more than they already do.

[Disclaimer]

I understand your concerns, but SOMETHING needs to be done.

I can't say whether or not I'd use public care, I just want to see it available, what it offers to someone of my age and income level and compare it to private care.

Worst case, a private company would have to meet or beat the gov't offering. And there is where true entrepreneurs and ingenious problem solvers make their money.

[SAMBUSA]

I understand your concerns, but SOMETHING needs to be done.

I can't say whether or not I'd use public care, I just want to see it available, what it offers to someone of my age and income level and compare it to private care.

Worst case, a private company would have to meet or beat the gov't offering.

No they wouldn't. They would just say tough shit. So what happens..................fuck it. Nevermind. Not gonna bother

One question though. Who pays for this govt insurance?

[dmagicglock]

I edited my post after you quoted it so it didn't capture everything, but profit doesn't always equal success.

Is the goal of health care to make people healthy (I think Inya posted that in one of the initial posts), or is the goal to profit from you?

If profit = success, then we should pay a lot more for taxes, so the military can post profits, the infrastructure and highway services can post profits. Every road would be a toll road.... profit shouldn't always be the goal, especially in the healthcare field. The goal should be HEALTHY citizens.

The goal of healthcare is to make us better, the goal of INSURANCE is to make a profit or at least prevent financial loss in the event of a major disaster or crisis, event, etc. The military's goal is to protect us, yet the current administration continues to cut missile defense spending, and the president is threatening to veto a bill with funding for F22's and F35 engines right now. Efficiency, and efficacy should be the goals of a lot of things but spending has to be curtailed at some point?

Anything we do can be great if we continue to pour in an endless amount of money. But when do the excessive costs impeded on our quality of life and insurance/healthcare becomes so effective that its cost are so high that it actually has a reverse effect?

[Disclaimer]

What's more important than your health in your quality of life?

[r1crusher]

I understand your concerns, but SOMETHING needs to be done.

I can't say whether or not I'd use public care, I just want to see it available, what it offers to someone of my age and income level and compare it to private care.

Worst case, a private company would have to meet or beat the gov't offering. And there is where true entrepreneurs and ingenious problem solvers make their money.

You're right....start by revamping the judicial system so that frivolous cases against medical practitioners doesn't get a chance to get started. There, you just reduced practitioners malpractice costs by millions in turn reducing the fees they charge to us and the ins. companies in turn reducing the premiums you and I have to pay.

[Disclaimer]

Agreed, but who determines what cases are frivolous?

[dmagicglock]

You're right....start by revamping the judicial system so that frivolous cases against medical practitioners doesn't get a chance to get started. There, you just reduced practitioners malpractice costs by millions in turn reducing the fees they charge to us and the ins. companies in turn reducing the premiums you and I have to pay.

ahh thank you, someone agrees with me on tort reform!

[dmagicglock]

Agreed, but who determines what cases are frivolous?

a medical arbitration board made up of doctors, physicians, nurses, etc... I'm pretty sure they have realistic expectations on what is frivolous and what is mal practice by a doctor. Even through in some trial lawyers if you want to balance it out.

[Disclaimer]

Ok, now we're getting the wheels moving...

But there'd have to be 1000s of these boards across the country. I assume they'd be elected?

[r1crusher]

a medical arbitration board made up of doctors, physicians, nurses, etc... I'm pretty sure they have realistic expectations on what is frivolous and what is mal practice by a doctor. Even through in some trial lawyers if you want to balance it out.

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with that. And there's lots of other ideas that would go right along with that example.

[r1crusher]

Ok, now we're getting the wheels moving...

But there'd have to be 1000s of these boards across the country. I assume they'd be elected?

Why not leverage the AMA...a special board which would provide direction and guide such cases along with our current judicial localities.

[dmagicglock]

whoa a couple of motorcycle junkies just solved america's healthcare problem in a forum through a civilized debate! Down with current elected officals!

okay maybe its a stretch... but a good start

[Disclaimer]

Debunking Canadian health care myths

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist.

[Disclaimer]

Interesting article... but Mr. Gratzer is known for using bad statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gratzer#Allegations_regarding_the_mis-use_of_statistics

And again, I'm not opposed to market-based healthcare, if you have the money, by all means, find the doctors that will cater to you and your moneybags. Just give me an option to have public insurance.

[r1crusher]

No problem....quit your job and go on welfare.

All free medical you can use.

I kid....like I said before I don't want to pay for your herpes meds.

:D:D

[Disclaimer]

It burrrrrrrnsss!!

[shittygsxr]

The goal of healthcare is to make sure we live as long as possible so that we have more years to pay taxes to the government. So it is in the best interest for the government to make sure you get the basic healthcare needed to survive. It is that point where you completely become a statistic, and a bean counter is determining if the proceeds from you tax payments offset the medical costs to get you better.

[dmagicglock]

The goal of healthcare is to make sure we live as long as possible so that we have more years to pay taxes to the government. So it is in the best interest for the government to make sure you get the basic healthcare needed to survive. It is that point where you completely become a statistic, and a bean counter is determining if the proceeds from you tax payments offset the medical costs to get you better.

good theory, I would also argue that far left wing liberals typically want to increase welfare and healthcare benefits as a way to empower government so that individuals can't survive without government intervention because they become so dependent upon it. I would also say its almost like "buying" votes, because lower socio economic classes typically vote for democrats knowing that they prefer wealth distribution (just as Obama said, "it's good to spread the wealth around.") and democrats typical favor the welfare system/unemployment benefits to support their lifestyles.

[Disclaimer]

Higher income brackets (specifically in the legal and health professions) and well as higher educated people also tend to vote democrat.

[dmagicglock]

here is the individual-level income/vote breakdown from exit polls for the 2004 presidential election:

Income %R %D

<$15K 36% 63%

$15-30K 41% 58%

$30-50K 48% 51%

$50-75K 55% 44%

$75-100K 53% 46%

$100-150K 56% 43%

$150-200K 57% 43%

>$200K 62% 37%

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/04/a_little_eviden.html

In the article the guy does say he doesn't believe that the stereotypes are true from his studies but this study got him to think a little otherwise.

[Disclaimer]

I want to see numbers..

Without a real in depth google search (I didn't check any sites beyond the first page)' date=' this seems to be the most credible source.

[url']http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Add rows 0,1,2 for "dem" and 4,5,6 for "rep" --- if they have a graduate degree, "dem" = 50%, "rep" = 38.4%

Coincidentally, this is why the New England states tend to vote Dem, a lot of academics up in that region.

Another article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/2468/education-level-linked-to-party-affiliation-poll-suggests

September 24, 2008

Education Level Linked to Party Affiliation, Poll Suggests

Once upon a time, political scientists could look at a voter’s income and history of church attendance and predict how he or she would vote in a presidential election. Working-class voters, the conventional wisdom went (and polls confirmed) tended to vote Democratic, while churchgoers trended Republican.

No longer. In the 2008 presidential election, the biggest predictor of party affiliation may be education, argues Alan Wolfe in an opinion piece in The New Republic.

As evidence, Mr. Wolfe points to a new poll by Washington Post/ABC News that found that white people without a college degree favor John McCain, the Republican candidate, by 17 percentage points, while those with a college degree prefer Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, by 9 percentage points.

That split could have broad implications for higher-education policy, Mr. Wolfe argues. “A divide such as this suggests that Democrats will continue to expand access to higher education while Republicans will oppose it,” he said.

At the same time, a McCain win could mean renewed scrutiny of colleges’ finances, he argues: “Expect, if the Republicans win, greater efforts by people such as (Sen.) Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, to regulate the endowments of the most selective colleges and universities.”

Edited July 2, 2009 by JRMMiii

[dmagicglock]

Without a real in depth google search (I didn't check any sites beyond the first page), this seems to be the most credible source.

http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

ehhh i know sometimes the more educated a person is they often have higher earnings... but I wouldn't say that it correlates wealth to voting tendencies. Because academia typically is liberal... Plus you have plenty of educated people like teachers (who are union workers) who make less than a lot of specialized technical careers yet vote democratic?

[Disclaimer]

It doesn't... I was correlating education, and in the higher income, I specifically said legal and health care - because many of the high income earners are CEOs, and big business guys are Reps. I posted that article on here in another thread, I just can't find it at the moment.