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.
When I got out HS in the late 80's I had to start paying for my own insurance. It was expensive but doable. The cost steadily rose each and every year as more mandates in coverage were passed by Democrats. The insurance policy I had covered things that would have bankrupted me, broken bones major medical etc. Now it covers everything under the sun, if I was just getting out of HS today I would never be able to pay for it.
Yep, required mandates were another cause of the HC cost bubble. In NY you would need to cover things like (using fictitious examples) boob jobs and sex changes whereas a policy in Ohio would just cover basic care and you would need to pay out of pocket for plastic surgery. Some idiots decided that being able to buy a policy from another state is bad and that you need to buy what fits your states requirement, even if you were male and didn't want to turn into a female you still had to pay for that premium.
TBH, removing my aforementioned 15% of people from long term or extravagant care is about the only thing you are going to do to reduce costs effectively and significantly enough to "fix" the system. The next best option is to reduce the need for defensive medicine. Neither will ever happen.
None of 'these' expense exploding, care denigrating HC costs could have come into being without the enactment and ratification of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of States' Senators.
The selection/election of States' Senators was designed explicitly to prevent unfunded mandates, to provide the safeguard against the growth of an overarching, burdensome, ultimately out of control abusive federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
Yep, required mandates were another cause of the HC cost bubble. In NY you would need to cover things like (using fictitious examples) boob jobs and sex changes whereas a policy in Ohio would just cover basic care and you would need to pay out of pocket for plastic surgery. Some idiots decided that being able to buy a policy from another state is bad and that you need to buy what fits your states requirement, even if you were male and didn't want to turn into a female you still had to pay for that premium.
TBH, removing my aforementioned 15% of people from long term or extravagant care is about the only thing you are going to do to reduce costs effectively and significantly enough to "fix" the system. The next best option is to reduce the need for defensive medicine. Neither will ever happen.
None of 'these' expense exploding, care denigrating HC costs could have come into being without the enactment and ratification of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of States' Senators.
The selection/election of States' Senators was designed explicitly to prevent unfunded mandates, to provide the safeguard against the growth of an overarching, burdensome, ultimately out of control abusive federal government.
I can't disagree. But then again I believe the right to vote should be for tax paying Americans only. You pay $1000 in taxes but receive $1001 in welfare (not SS for the love of god) then you shouldn't be able to vote.
Providing healthcare to the poor was always a moral imperative. It was never intended to be a "Bargain" for the states.
This is yet another reason to have universal, single-payer, federal healthcare : the states are engaged in a race to the bottom.
And once again, "Americans for Prosperity" and the Wall Street Journal advocating cuts for the indigent without any plans to provide alternatives.
Problem is Americans don't want to pay for it.
Look at Vermont. They ditched their plan because it called for 18% new payroll taxes and additional money via state income tax to pull it off and that was keeping the Fed's medicaid money.
A Federal insurance plan will do you no good until you bring the costs under control.
This is what Europe has done. With lower costs comes a lower priced insurance.
I disagree, I think Americans would be happy to pay for it. I think the obstacle is that insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, patent and trial lawyers, etc., don't want to see their business cut.
Quote:
Look at Vermont. They ditched their plan because it called for 18% new payroll taxes and additional money via state income tax to pull it off and that was keeping the Fed's medicaid money.
Which is why I say that state plans won't work. A federal overhaul is necessary.
Medicaid desperately needs to apply some of the same type copay structures that commercial health insurance does.
Government health center- no copay
Doctor's office- $5-$10 per visit
ER (without being admitted): $25-$50 per visit
Medicine-
Generic- $1 per prescription
Brand name (if no generic is available)- $1 per prescription
Brand name when generic is available- $15 per prescription unless doc writes a prior auth
I would waive the co-pays for kids.
If everything is "free" to the user, they have zero incentive to choose the less expensive option. Costs are reigned in when the insured shares some of the costs. We are on a high deductible plan, and we've found health care to be extremely reasonable once we started asking questions. And we've had MRIs, surgeries, etc. So it's not like we don't consume any health care.
I disagree, I think Americans would be happy to pay for it. I think the obstacle is that insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, patent and trial lawyers, etc., don't want to see their business cut.
Which is why I say that state plans won't work. A federal overhaul is necessary.
1. You would probably be "happy" to pay for it, as you would probably pay very little. Someone else would pay for it.
2. When we spend on one thing, we must take away from another. Do you like roads and infrastructure?
3. Most of us physicians already do not accept Medicaid- we lose money on every patient. Expanding medicaid does little to improve access, as few providers will see them. Keep in mind that we have overhead to pay.
4. You could voluntarily pay more taxes (why not double). If every lib did that, it would probably pay for all the additional medicaid patients.
5. Bankrupting state budgets does not do anyone any good in the end.
I disagree, I think Americans would be happy to pay for it. I think the obstacle is that insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, patent and trial lawyers, etc., don't want to see their business cut.
Which is why I say that state plans won't work. A federal overhaul is necessary.
You still have to pay for it.
18% is about right. That's pretty much what Europeans have to pay.
Either the state or the Fed will collect it; you are't going to get any cheap or free deals.
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.
