Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blundering government is the source for the majority of problems that plague the health care hegemony.
...
Remedy - get government out of the way - completely.
End licensing, and deregulate everything.
...
Also end limited liability and tort abuse.
"Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back - and that's all ! "
One side knows how to be efficient and make money the other side knows how to spend it and can't get enough.
But to your point Obamacare is going really well isn't it?
Stick to your farmer analogies.
They were just as wrong on the facts but at least led somewhere marginally close to the point.
I'm not looking for trashing Obama.. trashing liberals and even trashing conservatives in this thread. I'm looking for a serious discussion about the law and where we can IMPROVE it.. not dismantle it.
I will say that I am a defender of it, but the ACA is not the most ideal reform that I wanted. However, I'm personally grateful for it's inception. BUt I recognize that it's not perfect (and never claimed it to be).
So, I would like to hear from those with serious thoughts about what they would change about the law or where they would improve it.
Here's what I would have liked to see:
1. I would have liked to see a medicare for all option. I think it might have offered some serious competition to insurance companies giving them more incentive to lower their prices.
2. I would have opened insurance across state lines. This would help those in rural areas where only two options are available, have more choices thereby pushing down prices.
3. I would have added tort reform.
4. I would have tied the law in with some sort of relief to doctors and education costs.
I may have more ideas down the line, but I would like to hear some of yours.. without the trashing, etc.
RE: #2 and #3-
I came across a great story on NPR about "selling insurance across state lines" complete with some links to some very good research. Several states allow this already and you know what, no OOS ins. company is even interested in doing business in those states. Sadly, I didn't bookmark this stuff, and now I can't find it.
Many states have passed tort reform laws and have found little to no lowering of costs. Lots of links on here about it.
#1 and #4 are great ideas, IMO. #1 was being discussed in the form of a "public option". Allowing people in their 50s/early 60s to buy into Medicare early was also discussed, and would make it easier for people to retire early.
Eliminate employer based HI policies.
Eliminate HI companies as the backbone of the system.
Create a backdoor into Medicare based on diagnosis.
Over time, expand Medicare to age 60, then age 55, then age 50, etc.
That might be enough.
Prior to age 50 and absent a serious situation/diagnosis very few of us need much "coverage".
I think you're a good bit younger than 50, otherwise you'd know better. Health problems frequently start popping up in one's 40s (or so). Also, young adult males have the highest rates of auto accidents, which treatment consumes a lot of resources (money). Young women have the babies. A preemie baby can eat up a lot of money. Even a healthy child requires well-child visits, immunizations, and frequent sick visits at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Implement one of McCain's ideas: Make employer provided Health Insurance fully taxable, with a credit of $7,500 for single employees, and while he favored $15k family credit, I'd favor $7,500 no matter the coverage. In essence, eliminate tax benefits to the employee for this freebie, especially for the family portion. Your spouse is not a company employee.
I'd also deep-six tax surcharge on medical equipment.
I think McCain favored $15K b/c he knew how much it would actually cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Under ACA, a bunch of coverage is mandatory, whether the insured wants it or not. I'd rather see insurers mandated to Offer those coverages, but not require every insured to purchase them. I suppose that concept of choice wouldn't financially support Obamacare.
No one knows what will befall them. Just take out a high deductible policy if you want to lower your premiums. The ACA allows that.
I think you're a good bit younger than 50, otherwise you'd know better.
Sorry to disappoint... but no. A good bit older than 50 (and single too).
Quote:
Health problems frequently start popping up in one's 40s (or so).
Yes they do. And for some it can show up even earlier.
But (as stated) MOST (really and truly) don't have those issues: Prior to age 50 and absent a serious situation/diagnosis very few of us need much "coverage".
Did you any actually substantial critique of my briefly stated health plan to make?
I mean aside from not addressing the hundreds of "what if's" and "yeah, but's" that can come up?
Sorry to disappoint... but no. A good bit older than 50 (and single too).
Yes they do. And for some it can show up even earlier.
But (as stated) MOST (really and truly) don't have those issues: Prior to age 50 and absent a serious situation/diagnosis very few of us need much "coverage".
Did you any actually substantial critique of my briefly stated health plan to make?
And this thread was going so nicely! (Not to mention you edited that sentence badly; I had to figure out what you were trying to say!) Anyway, I believe I answered some of that with these comments:
"Also, young adult males have the highest rates of auto accidents, which treatment consumes a lot of resources (money). Young women have the babies. A preemie baby can eat up a lot of money. Even a healthy child requires well-child visits, immunizations, and frequent sick visits at times."
I believe I answered some of that with these comments:
Not really. You just gave additional bad examples.
Quote:
"Also, young adult males have the highest rates of auto accidents,
which treatment consumes a lot of resources (money).
True enough. But really quite immaterial.
Another immaterial example would be industrial accidents.
Quote:
Young women have the babies. A preemie baby can eat up a lot of money.
Even a healthy child requires well-child visits..."
And your point is... what?
That 90% (aka "most") of that expense is known in advance and budgetable?
Or that the special risk, limited to a self defined pool, associated with the rest warrants some coverage?
Of course it does.
If you're ever inclined to explore my thoughts on the issue beyond the limits of what a
6 line synopsis can provide... please feel free to ask. But if you want to persist in criticizing
a 6 line synopsis for not having detail there's really not much point to asking. Is there?
The so-called free market approach gives us Gilded Age health care. We have concierges for some, and witch doctors for the others. Not much of a health care system really.
No --- the witch doctors are still out there even for those who can have Medicaid. Believe me plenty who qualify for Medicaid will go to the witch doctors -- and pay out of their own pocket first, then as a last resort go to a licensed doctor.
Here were I live, curanderos practice out of their apartments and charge $25 for an office visit, another $25 for some kind of injection and diagnose and treat. Sometimes they seem to cure a problem.
Lots of herbal stores and all kinds of alternative medicine out there --- lots of it is no different than what witch doctors do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
