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.
Well, TM . . . I have given this a lot of thought . . . and seems to me there are several ways we could go about dis-entangling insurance from employers.
States themselves can negotiate w/ insurance companies, wh/ is already done across this country. Low cost policies are often offered for students, the unemployed (outside of Medicaid).
But the logical thing is for insurance reform to come from w/in the industry itself (wh/ ain't gonna happen but you gotta agree - that is the logical place it should begin). Why should we have to rely on a gov't entity (the State, or Feds) or an employer to "negotiate" a policy and premiums?
Why doesn't the insurance industry itself reform from within?
I mean - no one is telling any insurance company in America that they themselves cannot step up to the bat and offer low premiums and decent coverage to all American citizens.
Any thoughts?
Well I think you kind of already answered for me on your aside that it aint gonna happen as far as insurance reform. Let's face it.. any corporation..insurance or otherwise..only does the minimum the law is required of them.. that's why there are employment labor laws..etc. Otherwise we'd all be working 80 hour weeks with 15 minute lunch breaks etc.. all to excel their profits (this is an exageration, but you get the point) It's hte whole point of having laws set forth by state and federal government in any respect.. otherwise we'd have the wild wild west in play.
AND.. as it stand it seems that ALOT of laws that are passed, etc. always somehow seem to benefit the corporations (and the wealthy with all their loopholes, etc.). After all we are a corporate welfare nation, IMO.
So..that being said there is NO WAY insurance reform is going to happen from within so therefor the government does have to step in and require them to do so. I still feel the BEST solution IS to get rid of all the profiteering in the health insurance arena.. ie: get rid of the insurance companies.. That's why I'm such a proponent of a UHI.. one that I know is not going to happen anytime soon.
Perhaps the ONLY way to "force" insurance companies to do the reform from within is if they truly believe a UHI is right around the corner that is threatening their livelihood..but as THAT is not a worry for them anytime soon.. then neither is their desire to change their horrid ways.
First, no employer is required to provide any insurance or perks of any kind. Many do not realize this.
But, if insurance companies were allowed to sell their insurance across state lines (they are prohibited from doing so now), on an individual basis, because of the larger pool of potential insureds, rates would come down.
The other change, currently in legislative form in the Congress, is to allow professional organizations to form national insurance pools. For instance, the National Association of REALTORS, with 1.2 million members nationwide, most of who are independent contractors / self employed, could form an insurance pool of 1.2 million potential new insureds. Insurance companies would clamor for that business and offer very attractive rates. Thereby making health insurance more affordable. AND, many of this group, and other professional groups like NAR, make up a significant percentage of the uninsured / underinsured in the United States.
I would like to see professional organizations be able to form pools, most of the self employed choose to belong to these organizations. We need to support our self employed and small businesses, they are important to the economy and strength of our country. Insurance costs and availability are a huge hinderance to the success of these companies.
Essentially, a cash-only physician in a private practice is not necessarily breaking the Hippocratic Oath, as they are treating every patient that walks through their door. And a big sign on the door of a private practitioner that says "CASH ONLY" and a price list would technically inform patients that if they don't have the money to pay for their check-up, then don't walk through the doors.
It sucks, but if you wanted to get specific, well there it is.
Yes... in theory you are right
BUT, if a patient walked in, begging you to help him... and disregarding what the sign says, would you do it?
Or would you say-"READ the sign"?
What I am in fact implying is that this is not moral, ethical, humane or anything close to that.
And this is no good choice for doctors to make. I would help them... and probably go bankrupt.
BUT HEY, I am humane and can't see people suffering... MUST be my "fault"
that i'm not heartless and cold like some people are.
Exactly! However, very few in the law making realm will discuss this. Like I said to TM, I think that physicians and clinicians want to be able to provide affordable, quality care to their patients. We don't want anyone to be shut out at all. Yet, the aspects of reimbursement need to be addressed in a major fashion if we are going to do an overhaul of the system.
And I agree.. although not stated specifically in my post about reimbursement system I did mean it to also cover amount that gets reimbursed. It would all have to be carefully constructed. But I truly believe that if thought out well it could be worked out and work VERY well.
Check out HOW many doctors per 100 000 population do most countries with UHC have, and how many US has. They have as many, and many have more doctors.
Still, the problem is WASTE. Bureocracy MAY be as much as 30% of costs of HI in states.
Yet, if the government, in the United States, reduces reimbursements under a UHI scheme, as they have in Medicare, you may very well find fewer and fewer physicans willing to go into practice.
IMO, most of the arguments that I've heard both for and against health care miss the mark completely. Arguring for or against nationalized health care is putting the cart before the horse.
First off, Health Care is an absolute misnomer. Disease Management is a far better description of what takes place under the banner of health care. Let us first create a true Health Care system, then argue about nationalizing it or not. Initially, remove MDs and DOs form the role of PCP and replace them with practitioners who understand health care. Professionals such as Naturopaths, Chirporactors, Homeopaths, and some alternative Health Care practitioners are far better suited to be PCPs. Until the emphasis is shifted from screenings and treatment to PREVENTION, we have no Health Care system, but rather a Disease Management system that is bankrupting the country by supporting the AMA, the Insurance companies, and Big Pharma at the expense of US citizens.
Last edited by CosmicWizard; 03-11-2008 at 02:47 PM..
I would like to see professional organizations be able to form pools, most of the self employed choose to belong to these organizations. We need to support our self employed and small businesses, they are important to the economy and strength of our country. Insurance costs and availability are a huge hinderance to the success of these companies.
The legislation is "stuck" in the Senate. Senator Reid will not allow it to come up for an up or down vote on the floor.
IMO, most of the arguments that I've heard both for and against health care miss the mark completely. Arguring for or against nationalized health care is putting the cart before the horse.
First off, Health Care is an absolute misnomer. Disease Management is a far better description of what takes place under the banner of health care. Let us first create a true Health Care system, then argue about nationalizing it or not. Initially, remove MDs and DOs form the role of PCP and replace them with practitioners who understand health care. Professionals such as Naturopaths, Chirporactors, Osteopaths are far better suited to be PCPs. Until the emphasis is shifted from screenings and treatment to PREVENTION, we have no Health Care system, but rather a Disease Management system that is bankrupting the country by supporting the AMA, the Insurance companies, and Big Pharma at the expense of US citizens.
I still feel the BEST solution IS to get rid of all the profiteering in the health insurance arena.. ie: get rid of the insurance companies..
AND TM - therein lies the biggest rub. I can assure you that if you "get rid of the insurance companies", those companies will have to be compensated for there losses - I GUARANTEE IT. And the cost will be in the Trillions of Dollars.
And, who do you think will have to pay those Trillions of $$$'s TM?
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.
