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.
As opposed to creating a giant government run health bureaucracy, we just need to focus on the expensive catastrophic coverage. When it comes to health care cost we are lumping in the runny noses, broken bones, and minors illness with cancer, heart surgery brain surgery etc.
We need to split these up in order to truly increase care and lower over all costs.
The report below gives a great overview of the idea of providing for Status Change insurance. I can see having competing health insurance companies who just deal in minor health issues and we could have a policy that just pays for high end policy premiums in case of a catastrophic change in our health status.
I can still see private insurance in this or we can have the government provide the insurance or reinsurance (for a fee). This is an interesting direction to look.
As opposed to creating a giant government run health bureaucracy, we just need to focus on the expensive catastrophic coverage. When it comes to health care cost we are lumping in the runny noses, broken bones, and minors illness with cancer, heart surgery brain surgery etc.
We need to split these up in order to truly increase care and lower over all costs.
The report below gives a great overview of the idea of providing for Status Change insurance. I can see having competing health insurance companies who just deal in minor health issues and we could have a policy that just pays for high end policy premiums in case of a catastrophic change in our health status.
I can still see private insurance in this or we can have the government provide the insurance or reinsurance (for a fee). This is an interesting direction to look.
If I had a choice of "living with my disease" for the rest of my life and paying for expensive insurance along with REDICULOUS OUTRAGEOUS co-pays in the thousands of dollars each year OR>>>>> an option that isn't even MENTIONED (because it makes no money for the medical establishment)>>>>the option of being given ..an opportunity to see a NATUROPATHIC DOCTOR who could determine the underlying CAUSE of the chronic disease; help me eliminate it and help me strengthen my immune system until my Robust Health returned, I'd chose the latter.
If this is such a "good and ethical" country, why isn't everyone (except for the few like me who know about it and know how to seek it out) given the second option?????
I'll tell you why. It is all about THE MONEY! Natural methods to help people get rid of chronic and degenerative diseases have been around since the stone age. They are FAR MORE PROVEN having stood the test of time ..than drugs. But isn't it more profitable to put someone on Rx for the rest of their lives and monitor that rather than to send them to a specialist who can help them get rid of their disease in a matter of months or a year or so at most?
If I had a choice of "living with my disease" for the rest of my life and paying for expensive insurance along with REDICULOUS OUTRAGEOUS co-pays in the thousands of dollars each year OR>>>>> an option that isn't even MENTIONED (because it makes no money for the medical establishment)>>>>the option of being given ..an opportunity to see a NATUROPATHIC DOCTOR who could determine the underlying CAUSE of the chronic disease; help me eliminate it and help me strengthen my immune system until my Robust Health returned, I'd chose the latter.
If this is such a "good and ethical" country, why isn't everyone (except for the few like me who know about it and know how to seek it out) given the second option?????
I'll tell you why. It is all about THE MONEY! Natural methods to help people get rid of chronic and degenerative diseases have been around since the stone age. They are FAR MORE PROVEN having stood the test of time ..than drugs. But isn't it more profitable to put someone on Rx for the rest of their lives and monitor that rather than to send them to a specialist who can help them get rid of their disease in a matter of months or a year or so at most?
I am in a similar boat, just not sure what this has to do with my post.
As opposed to creating a giant government run health bureaucracy, we just need to focus on the expensive catastrophic coverage. When it comes to health care cost we are lumping in the runny noses, broken bones, and minors illness with cancer, heart surgery brain surgery etc.
We need to split these up in order to truly increase care and lower over all costs.
We split the two today through high deductible policies. With $5,000+ annual deductibles the purchaser is paying lower premiums but has to pay for colds, doctor visits, & minor injuries himself.
We split the two today through high deductible policies. With $5,000+ annual deductibles the purchaser is paying lower premiums but has to pay for colds, doctor visits, & minor injuries himself.
Sounds like the good old days when I first became licensed as a health insurance agent and there wasn't a hint of a national health care crisis. Policies then also didn't "cover" anything but "medically necessary" things. Normal childbirth wasn't "covered" either...because you weren't sick. People thought of health insurance like they think of their homeowners or auto insurance (which is the way it should be).
Health Insurance was used for BIG THINGS light it ought to be today. People paid for their own daily needs and they were a lot healthier then too. It was rare to see anyone younger than 50 taking prescriptions. Now kids and young adults are all on drugs. It is REALLY A SHAME!
There were far fewer drugs then and no such thing as ADD, ADHD, Autism, Acid Reflux Disease, High Cholesterol and a myriad of other modern diseases they have come up with so they can justify putting you on prescriptions and making money off of you for the rest of your life.
There were far fewer drugs then and no such thing as ADD, ADHD, Autism, Acid Reflux Disease, High Cholesterol and a myriad of other modern diseases they have come up with so they can justify putting you on prescriptions and making money off of you for the rest of your life.
As opposed to creating a giant government run health bureaucracy, we just need to focus on the expensive catastrophic coverage. When it comes to health care cost we are lumping in the runny noses, broken bones, and minors illness with cancer, heart surgery brain surgery etc.
I can still see private insurance in this or we can have the government provide the insurance or reinsurance (for a fee). This is an interesting direction to look.
I'd use the CATO institutes recommendations for health care economics when I take the advice of tobbacco company scientists on smoking. Or after.
Why don't you take a look at the UHC systems of Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands for examples of how to use private insurance companies to provide health care?
Not specualtions and guesses, but systems that have been tried in the real world and had the kinks woked out over decades.
I'd use the CATO institutes recommendations for health care economics when I take the advice of tobbacco company scientists on smoking. Or after.
Why don't you take a look at the UHC systems of Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands for examples of how to use private insurance companies to provide health care?
Not specualtions and guesses, but systems that have been tried in the real world and had the kinks woked out over decades.
They worked under favorable demographics and small populations, that is changing.
I choose to judge the presentation, not just the presenter, it helps to keep an open mind.
They worked under favorable demographics and small populations, that is changing.
I choose to judge the presentation, not just the presenter, it helps to keep an open mind.
Favorable demographics? It delivers better results than the US gets, for 2/3 to half the cost. In populations with equal or much greater share of immigrants than the USA.
Being critical of your source is generally a good thing. Unless you have some background knowledge of health care economics, steer clear of the CATO institute. You are better off getting you information from sources which are neutral or presents neutral research. They are people who knowing the score will publish things like "Europe should bear a greater share of defense costs".
Favorable demographics? It delivers better results than the US gets, for 2/3 to half the cost. In populations with equal or much greater share of immigrants than the USA.
Being critical of your source is generally a good thing. Unless you have some background knowledge of health care economics, steer clear of the CATO institute. You are better off getting you information from sources which are neutral or presents neutral research. They are people who knowing the score will publish things like "Europe should bear a greater share of defense costs".
I judge the information, Cato publishes some very good stuff. I don't listen to them for corporate or environmental reports but in many other areas they are spot on.
Are you saying we should pay for Europe's defense?
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.
