Conservatives, can you please tell me how do you have free market healthcare?

[ambient]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

It's fairly simple. Have people pay for services put of their own pocket, and then get reimbursed by insurance. Since the consumer of a service and the person (or company) paying for the service are divorced, there is no incentive for rational use of medical care.

Great idea. Good luck paying $100K out of pocket for that critical surgery and then trusting that you'll be able to get an insurance company to actually cough up the money to reimburse you.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

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?

Well, you are one lucky hombre! We have had multiple problems over the years, to the point that we once filed a complaint with the insurance comissioner to get the ins. company to pay bills it had been contracted to pay for. That was a number of years ago, but still . . More recently, the ins. co was refusing to pay for care for our 19 year old daughter who was at the time a full time student (this was before the health care act was passed). Every time we called they told us they couldn't pay b/c she was over 18 and not a FT student. We would say she is a FT student, what documentation do you need. They would tell us something (always something different, though, e.g. tuition statements, grade reports, this, that the other). We would dutifully send this stuff in, only to have the whole routine repeated the next time there was a claim. Finally I got really angry and told my husband to take it up with HR at his company, who was providing the insurance. FINALLY, after months, we got it straightened out, after paying a $900 bill that had been run up so that we could continue with care. Then it took forever to get reimubursed from the dr's office.

[shorebaby]

Originally Posted by ambient

Great idea. Good luck paying $100K out of pocket for that critical surgery and then trusting that you'll be able to get an insurance company to actually cough up the money to reimburse you.

Years ago there was catastrophic coverage, for just the type of event that you describe, not for every stinking health related issue. There are folks who make a career out of consuming medical resources. If you don't have to pay for a particular service, what is the incentive to use it rationally?

[geeoro]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

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:
Maybe if you had used the health services in other Countries you woud realise, first hand and not from some ver very dubious statistics that Health care in the USA is extremely poor for the majority and only good for the wealthy or people with good employment based health care

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%
You must remember that there are many types of Cancer with differing survival rates which affects each countries stats as some cancers are more virulent than others. Early diagnosis is also important in the statitics....
eg..... A cancer that without treatment would cause death after approx 7 years if diagnosed early in the USA would be looked upon as a higher survival rate than the same cancer diagnosed later in eg.... in a eastern european country, diagnosed at year 3 or 4, even though the survival rate is exactly the same.
In the USA now there are many people who are diagnosed with cancer but cannot enter any kind of treatment programme so either do not become registered or go abroad eg puerto rico for treatment and are not in the statistics. The statistics are then biased towards Americans with health cover who can afford treatment.


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%
Not sure where these stats come from but i know for a fact that every single patient in the UK who is diagnosed with Diabetes recieves treatment immediately........... no one waits six days let alone six months. Also....... ALL medications are free to diabetics in the UK. These statistics are extremely suspect and false.


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%
I know many in the UK who have had a complete hip replacement under 6 months...... again very suspect statistics

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%
In the UK..... depending on the seriousness of your illness will decide your waiting time....... any Cancer referalls are seen within 2 weeks. Gall bladder or cold cases can take longer but normally within a few weeks.


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18
MRI is a very very common examination in the UK...... so the point of this stat??????


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%
Very Doubtful as many in the USA over 65 have ailments that in no way can they say they are in good health.......... again very suspect stats.


And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES

High premiums.... Co pays.... Refusal of cover for pre existing conditions.... refusal to pay for treatments........ dropping from health plan..... expensive drugs....... higher cost per capita..... etc etc

USA............. YES

UK ........... NO

Canada.......... NO

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Majin

Lets discuss Mitten's statement about free market healthcare.

Well here is the question.

How can you possibly have "free market" healthcare insurance when you can't just hire and fire companies at will? The absolute core of having a truly competitive free market is that health insurance companies have to compete for your services.

That's only part of it. It is also necessary for doctors and hospitals to compete for your business as well.

Originally Posted by Majin

But health insurance doesn't work like that. You can only shop around for health insurance while you're young, healthy, and unmarried with no kids. Once you start developing age-related health problems, and/or get married and have kids, you CANNOT shop around for health insurance like you would with a cell phone provider, car dealership, or where you choose to buy groceries.

I get the distinct impression you are completely ignorant about the concept of insurance.

Insurance is related to risk. Your bizarre comments on "health insurance" also apply to life insurance, homeowners insurance, auto insurance, boating insurance, business insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance and all others as well.

Even if you got health insurance when you were young, your rates would eventually increase. Why? Because the risk increases.

What you don't understand is that you don't have "health insurance." The fact that people erroneously call it "health insurance" does not alter the fact that it is not insurance, because it is not based on actuarial science, as just one example of many many reasons why it isn't insurance.

If you had real true actual bona fide health insurance, the first thing you would notice is that it is not a take it or leave it deal. It isn't a package that is rammed down your throat. You have tremendous say in insurance and in tailoring insurance plans to your own personal needs.

Why should you as a female pay for prostate cancer screening or the risk of testicular cancer?

You shouldn't, and if you had real insurance you wouldn't be charged for that any more than a man would be charged with pregnancy, pap smears or the risk of breast, uterine, ovarian or cervical cancer (men do get breast cancer -- and always have since time immemorial but the risk is very low).

If you had real insurance, you would be able to choose whether or not doctor's office visits were covered, and also choose the deductible that is right for you.

You could choose whether or not to be covered by emergency room visits, and also the prescription medication related to an emergency room visit, and also choose the deductible for that.

You could choose routine prescription drug coverage, and the deductible for that.

And you could also choose long-term catastrophic care coverage, get a rider for cancer if your family has a risk of cancer, get a rider for heart disease if your family has a history of heart disease and so on.

No one in my family paternal or maternal (about 1,900+ people since 1865) has ever had an heart attack or heart disease of any kind including hypertension, high blood pressure etc etc etc, so why should I pay for something that will never affect me?

An aunt died over ovarian cancer, and my grandfather died of pancreatic cancer. That's 2 out of 1,900+, so why should I pay for cancer coverage?

Hell, all 8 of my great-grandparents smoked for more than 80 years, one died in an auto-accident, and the others all died in their 90s. My grandmother just turned 99 in December Why? Probably because her husband smoked for 70+ years.

The only health insurance I would purchase is coverage for long-term catastrophic care, emergency room visits, diagnostic testing and prescription medication, and I'd take high deductibles.

I wouldn't want doctor's office visits. Would it make sense to pay an extra $100 per month to go to the doctor twice a year? That would be stupid.

Originally Posted by Majin

You are STUCK with your health insurance provider as you WILL NOT get covered because of "pre-existing conditions", or at best you will have to pay an unaffordable high premium to get coverage.

That is entirely your fault because you unnecessarily insist on having having health care coverage sponsored by your employer.

When you start taking responsibility for your own actions, you'll find that life is cheaper.

Originally Posted by Majin

Basically, health insurance based on the free market only works on the young and healthy. Once you reach 35+ (or younger, or at birth, based on your genetics) it no longer works.

Again, you have demonstrated that you don't understand insurance.

What I'm hearing is that you want free health care, but there is no one to pay for your free health care. The sooner you figure that out, the better off you will all be.

Originally Posted by Majin

Can some conservatives tell me how I am wrong? Or what a free market based health insurance program is suppose to look like?

Simple.

1] Outlaw the Hospital Robber Baron Cartels. How do you know there are cartels? Simple. Read your documentation. If you see the phrase "Out-of-Network" then you are operating in a Cartel environment, just like OPEC which I notice that most of you despise.

If you cannot use your health insurance at any medical facility or doctor's office without paying a penalty, then there are restrictions in the market place and by definition, you do not have a free market.

The Hospital Robber Baron Cartels also illegally collude to illegally fix prices above market value. What are you doing about that? Nothing.

Collusion and price-fixing are restrictions in the market, and thus by definition, you do not have a free market.

2] Apply the sports/[former] radio rule. Only one hospital per market. How exactly do I have free market competition if I can only choose from Saint Luke East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Saint Luke West owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Bethesda North, owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Mercy East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Mercy South owned by the Sisters of Mercy.

Where the hell is my choice? Sisters of Mercy or Sisters of Mercy is not a choice. That's like choosing between Wal*Mart and Sam's Club.3] Remove health care from the realm of the employer. That dumps the responsibility squarely on your shoulders where it has always belonged. In typical fashion, you sloughed off responsibility to another and then do nothing but complain. If you want to be empowered, then take responsibility.

4] Doing those things will cause a shift from the Hospital Model to the European Clinic Model, and then your health care system will be more like Europe. That's what I keep hearing, right? If only we had a system like Europe. Well, if you want a system like Europe, then you need to do those things to make your system like Europe, and for starters that means closing 60% of your hospitals which are unnecessary and redundant, wasting resources and driving the price of health care up.

5] Get government out of health care. Government price controls are what drives up the price of health care. You'd think after the collapse of the Soviet Union which practiced price controls, you'd all get the message. I guess not.Maybe after the US collapses you'll get the message.6] Allow insurance companies to use actuarial science. Have States eliminate the stupid requirements for coverage and the mandates.
The cost of your health insurance should be based solely on the risk that you pose, just like the cost of your car insurance is based solely on the risk that you pose.

But that isn't fair because it would cost some people more. Really?So what? Some people get to buy a bigger house than others. Some people get to buy more expensive cars than others and some buy more expensive clothes than others.

You'll get over it.

If you need to scale down and sell your 4,400 sq ft McMansion and cram yourself into a 2,800 sq ft house, then that's what you need to do. If you can only afford 2 cars instead of 3-5, then that's what you need to do. If you have to wear Wrangler jeans instead of Tommy-gear or Coogi, then that's what you need to do.

If you ask me to pony up money to pay for your health insurance so you can live in a McMansion, then I'm going to tell you to get bent.

Cable or health insurance.

Choose wisely.

Discussing Mitten's statement...

Mircea

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

For example? Forget high risk, but a very real case involving a six year old sweetheart born with heart problems, who heavily relies on Medicaid despite of both parents working. His monthly expense on medicines alone exceeds over $2K and has to carry oxygen at all times. How does free market handle these cases?

It would probably set up a high-risk fund, just like high-risk credit cards, auto loans and mortgages.

You might want to look into palliative care.

It would probably be beneath your or beyond your skills, but do a Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Costs outweigh the Benefits.

We've been over this before. Apparently there is some part of "You don't have any money to pay for this nonsense" that you don't understand.

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to show me the numbers.

Medicare will collapse in 2018 (or sooner). I can't wait to see you all tap dance around that. Maybe Reality will slap you all in the face and bring you to your senses.

Recognizing reality....

Mircea

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

I agree. Why can't each state set up its own plan using the fed plan as a blueprint.

Because then the federal government would not be in charge.

It's a psychological issue; a control issue.

Like I said, what's wrong the government mandating 6.2% deducted from your payroll and placed in "hands-off" lock-box account that cannot be used as an asset or collateral for anything (since it is in fact a future liability) at the financial institution of your choosing, and you can invest that money as you see fit, or not, maybe you just roll over Certificates of Deposit continually, and you could as well if not better than Social Security.

What's wrong is the government cannot control it. Knowing all that money was out there and available for the taking would just drive the government into total insanity, and they'd be looking for ways to get their hands on it.

That's just the way government is, in part because Americans let it get to big and Americans allowed the Constitution to be subverted along they way.

Advocating States' Rights...

Mircea

Originally Posted by geeoro

Having a "free market" health care system as the sole means of health care does NOT work and has failed miserably in the USA.

But you never had a free market health care system.

How could a free market health care system have failed miserably when one has never existed?

Originally Posted by geeoro

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.

You've got that backwards.

Home and auto insurance are successful and viable, precisely because they are run the way they are.

Health care would be equally successful.

Originally Posted by geeoro

Millions in the USA suffer daily because their health is treated like a luxury item....... it isn't.

You can't prove that.

There are 110 Million households in the US.

99 Million households have cable, satellite or both.

46 Million households are on Food Stamps.

What does that tell you? It says that at least 40 Million households consider cable to be more important than food.

Originally Posted by geeoro

To glibly say that you are responsible for your own health is ignoring the fact that....... NO we aren't.

Yes, you are, and trying to dump the responsibility on me because you are weak and lazy isn't the best way to win friends and influence enemies.

Your health and health care is your responsibility, not mine.

Originally Posted by geeoro

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.

Quit talking and start chalking. Prove it. Impress us. Show us the numbers.

You can't even get Medicare to work, and you want me to believe that a single payer system will?

How much money are you willing to spend on one person?

If you can't answer that, there's no way you can have any kind of universal health care.

Wanting a true free market system...

Mircea

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

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.

Yes, indeed. In fact, I believe I said on this forum about 5 years ago that when Health Care and Government exceeded 50% of your GDP, you would go into a recessionary state and remain there until you corrected that problem.

Wouldn't you know that Health Care and Government exceeds 50% of your GDP (and has for the last several years).

Watching the US decline in competitiveness....

Mircea

[Donna-501]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

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":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S. NO

England YES

Canada YES

Except it doesn't help the people that don't have health insurance. What is the percentage of people that don't have health insurance? Which country has the most uninsured?