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.
Having a "free market" health care system as the sole means of health care does NOT work and has failed miserably in the USA.
To treat health problems the same way you would treat car insurance or house insurance is not only dumb but doomed to failure and is a extremely expensive way to run a health system.
Millions in the USA suffer daily because their health is treated like a luxury item....... it isn't.
To glibly say that you are responsible for your own health is ignoring the fact that....... NO we aren't.
NO ONE wants Cancer or any other disease but we are all susceptible...... yes ALL of us... rich or poor but if you have a pre condition or are older or have history in the family of certain illnesses or lose your employment based health care or are dropped by your insurance company etc etc etc etc, then you cannot get health treatment....... you can get emergency treatment and a huge bill.
Health Care is not just for the Elite it is for every single person in the USA and it is time that America caught up with the rest of the World as far as Health care.
A UHC would not only solve employment based problems but also probably solve the American unemployment problem overnight.
This is 2012 and not 1912........... To get a UHC in the USA would cost everyone far less and be more efficiant than the present free market out of date health service............ Everyone would win and no one would lose their life due to no health cover........ the health of the nation would improve, employers would no longer have to cut jobs or wages to pay health cover and America could be the No1 in the World for a great health service instead of far down list of good health providers in the Industrialised world.
Anyone who says that they do not want to pay for other American's health care should think about what they are saying as they obviously don't mind paying for a new health system in Iraq with our tax dollars.
Free market health has its place for people who can and want to pay insurance companies but only as a secondary health system to a national health service.
I couldn't get past your first statement, " Having a "free market" health care system as the sole means of health care does NOT work and has failed miserably in the USA.", so I didn't read the rest.
The U.S.some of the BEST health Care in the world. Looks like the system is doing better than many other countries:
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International
Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":
Have you ever tried to get reimbursed by an insurance company? My daughter was injured playing college basketball and the college insurance company paid some of our out of pocket expenses. It took six months or requesting documentation from doctor's offices, physical therapists and hospitals and submitting and resubmitting them to the insurance company.
Having to be reimbursed by your insurance company does not change the incentive at all.
I have been dealing with insurance companies for 45 years and have many, many dealing and I have NEVR experience your problem
Not to say it doesn't happen but, IMO, it is NOT a common occurrence based on the volume that they handle.
Do you really a gov't controlled system would be netter? have you ever had to deal with the IRS?
Having a "free market" health care system as the sole means of health care does NOT work and has failed miserably in the USA.
When did it fail? The US has never had a free market health insurance system. Health insurance was created during WWII when they were wage controls in place.
To treat health problems the same way you would treat car insurance or house insurance is not only dumb but doomed to failure and is a extremely expensive way to run a health system.
The difference between health insurance and other forms of insurance is the other forms only cover large, unpredictable expenses. The high liklihood that the elderly will incur large medical expenses makes it more of a predictable event and less of an issurable one.
Millions in the USA suffer daily because their health is treated like a luxury item....... it isn't.
To glibly say that you are responsible for your own health is ignoring the fact that....... NO we aren't.
NO ONE wants Cancer or any other disease but we are all susceptible...... yes ALL of us... rich or poor but if you have a pre condition or are older or have history in the family of certain illnesses or lose your employment based health care or are dropped by your insurance company etc etc etc etc, then you cannot get health treatment....... you can get emergency treatment and a huge bill.
Health Care is not just for the Elite it is for every single person in the USA and it is time that America caught up with the rest of the World as far as Health care.
A UHC would not only solve employment based problems but also probably solve the American unemployment problem overnight.
This is 2012 and not 1912........... To get a UHC in the USA would cost everyone far less and be more efficiant than the present free market out of date health service............ Everyone would win and no one would lose their life due to no health cover........ the health of the nation would improve, employers would no longer have to cut jobs or wages to pay health cover and America could be the No1 in the World for a great health service instead of far down list of good health providers in the Industrialised world.
Anyone who says that they do not want to pay for other American's health care should think about what they are saying as they obviously don't mind paying for a new health system in Iraq with our tax dollars.
Free market health has its place for people who can and want to pay insurance companies but only as a secondary health system to a national health service.
This country can continue to spend an increasing percentage of the GDP on healthcare with the result that the US will be less and less competitive in the global economy. Premiums for employer-based family health insurance rose 50 percent on average between 2003 and 2010. During that period insurance costs have risen three times faster than wages. The solution has to include competition and making individual consumers more aware and responsible for the expense.
In fairness though the US does spend more per capita on health care than Canada or England and has lower life expectancy than Canada or England. Hell, the government spends more per capita on health care in the US than the government does in Canada or England.
Clearly we need to make some changes. I'm against a national health care program, but we need to do something.
I have been dealing with insurance companies for 45 years and have many, many dealing and I have NEVR experience your problem
Not to say it doesn't happen but, IMO, it is NOT a common occurrence based on the volume that they handle.
Do you really a gov't controlled system would be netter? have you ever had to deal with the IRS?
I have always had good health insurance and never had to submit bills for reimbursement. This insurance company wanted documentation on each expense. My daughter had physical therapy at three different locations. I had to call each of them several times and have them mail me the documentation, which they had to either copy or print from theri billing system. I summarized all of the statements in a spreadsheet, made copies and mailed it to the college insurance company. I heard nothing. When I would call, they would tell me they didn't have all the documentation. This went on for three PY providers, two hospitals and a surgeon.
I'm not advocating a "gov't controlled system." I don't even know what a government controlled system is. We currently don't have a government controlled system and Obamacare is not a government controlled system. This term was invented by the people on talk radio who have no idea what they are talking about. We need as much market competition as possible. We need a system that employers are not involved with so that everyone is on an equal basis for purchasing health insurance. We need a system that doesn't reimburse providers on a fee for service basis, which only drives up the utilization of the healthcare system. We need a system where people pay out of pocket for more of their expenses and don't expect their insurance to cover it. This would be a start.
There is no law stating you HAVE to get your health care insurance from your employer. You are FREE to get from whomever you wish.
I have a son who saw a significant raise coming in his employer health care and he just went out on his own and saved about $100 per month by doing that. Now he is less than 35 like the OP said and he is not married and has no kids but it was a free market operation that he won't be able to do once Obamacare goes into effect.
IMO, many people say the federal gov't has one of the best health care plans available.
I agree. Why can't each state set up its own plan using the fed plan as a blueprint.
Any company that wants to do business in that state must comply with the requirements stipulated by that state.
The companies can offer MORE then the basic and charge accordingly.
ALL people would get their insurance from one of the approved companies.
Just as federal employees have many choices to pick from and the companies are always competing with each other for more clients. The more clients they have the lower the cost.
Employers can still offer to pay whatever portion of the monthly cost as they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
In fairness though the US does spend more per capita on health care than Canada or England and has lower life expectancy than Canada or England. Hell, the government spends more per capita on health care in the US than the government does in Canada or England.
Clearly we need to make some changes. I'm against a national health care program, but we need to do something.
I have a son who saw a significant raise coming in his employer health care and he just went out on his own and saved about $100 per month by doing that. Now he is less than 35 like the OP said and he is not married and has no kids but it was a free market operation that he won't be able to do once Obamacare goes into effect.
I certainly hope your son does not get sick. In order to pay for my cancer treatments, I would have had to save $100 a month for 166 years. I had only been in the full time working world for 4 months. 1 PET scan alone would be over 15 years worth of saving at that level - and I needed 3 before/during treatment and need 2 a year for 2 years then 1 a year for 3 more years.
And I was 12 years younger than your son when I got sick.
IMO, many people say the federal gov't has one of the best health care plans available.
I agree. Why can't each state set up its own plan using the fed plan as a blueprint.
Any company that wants to do business in that state must comply with the requirements stipulated by that state.
The companies can offer MORE then the basic and charge accordingly.
ALL people would get their insurance from one of the approved companies.
Just as federal employees have many choices to pick from and the companies are always competing with each other for more clients. The more clients they have the lower the cost.
Employers can still offer to pay whatever portion of the monthly cost as they choose.
Your comment that, "Any company that wants to do business in that state must comply with the requirements stipulated by that state," is the way private health insurance plans have been regulated in this country since 1945. What complicated things was the federal government passing ERISA in 1974. It was intended as a minor part of the legislation but had a provision that allowed a few large national emplyers who chose to self-fund their health benefits to be covered under this federal regulation and not state regulation. The result today is that approximately a third of employer provided health insurance is regulated by the federal government and two thirds is regulated by states.
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.
