Universal Health Care

[GaryC 7]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if insurance costs were reasonable based on other financial indices, but they clearly aren't. If insurance companies were forced to provide affordable coverage to everyone (and by affordable, I mean a reasonable percentage of a household's income), even the very ill, the system would collapse, and even more insurance companies would go under. Insurance companies are for-profit businesses, which is at the root of the crisis.

Why would they collapse? They don't collapse in other countries that have affordable healthcare.

If insurance companies were forced to take on sick people who would then turn around and make gigantic claims while paying low (affordable) premiums, this would cut into profits. Many health insurance companies stay profitable by denying coverage to high-risk applicants. In a group plan scenario, economies of scale help pool the risk because healthy people (presumably) are paying into the pool. But outside group plans, the insurers need to pick and choose whom they cover to keep the profit margins high. Someone who pays $3500 a year in premiums but whose claims are $100,000K (not an uncommon scenario for a sick person) is obviously going to be a liability.

I have to disagree with that. If everyone were allowed to sign up for insurance the cost would be spread over a large number of people. Insurance companies may not make as much but they will still make money.

I am all for insurance reform. But a lot of other reforms must come with it. Malpractice reform is a big one. It drives the costs way up. In general our health care system works. It needs to be adjusted so more people can buy into it. They need to remove the "pre-exsiting conditions" clause on insurance. That would enable Ganja Girl to get her coverage without making everyone else pay for it. They need to make insurance portable. So people don't need to worry if their new job has insurance. The need to cap the costs for procedures that hospitals do. That would reign in the costs that drive insurance up. They need to regulate what insurance companies charge for high risk members.

I never said we don't need to reform things. I just don't want to junk the whole thing and turn it over to the government. Everyone need to pay for what they get, we just need to find a way to make everyone able to pay for what they need.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

Don't make me cut and paste statistics of how much the uninsured and unpaid medical bills raise our premiums.

should that be the case, why are you not hot after the deadbeats instead of wanting to punish everyone?

Why am I not? People should pay if they can...that's not the point. I'm saying that there are people who don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay their medical bills. The medical providers have collectors to go after them, who have legal means to try and get them to pay, but in the end as the sign at the hospital says, they won't turn anyone away because of inability to pay - which is where the problem starts.

is this any different than people who can't pay for their house, or car?

[Heracles 417]

If insurance companies were forced to take on sick people who would then turn around and make gigantic claims while paying low (affordable) premiums, this would cut into profits.

Absolutely. Their astronomical profits will take a hit, their stocks will plummet, but the system won't collapse.

I have to say though the one thing I really like about the universal healthcare system in Australia is that the people who are least likely to afford it still have it. How in the hell does someone with cerebral palsy, for example, A ) get a job and B ) get an insurance company to cover them. I have a better chance of walking on Mars than these people being covered.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[SaadBell 0]

If this does not make you cry, than I guess I have nothing else to say.

[Pooky 3,844]

However you frame it, the system will remain inequitable as long as there is a profit motive. Remove the profit from the equation and care becomes the primary driver of the healthcare system. To that end, you cannot maintain a system run by private enterprise and still have care as the primary focus.

Like it or not, the health industry will only provide cost-effective healthcare once private enterprise and profit are removed from the mix, and that only leaves government, be it local, state or federal. Take away the profit and you're left with healthcare.

P

[mawilson 2,133]

I have to disagree with that. If everyone were allowed to sign up for insurance the cost would be spread over a large number of people. Insurance companies may not make as much but they will still make money.

I am all for insurance reform. But a lot of other reforms must come with it. Malpractice reform is a big one. It drives the costs way up. In general our health care system works. It needs to be adjusted so more people can buy into it. They need to remove the "pre-exsiting conditions" clause on insurance. That would enable Ganja Girl to get her coverage without making everyone else pay for it. They need to make insurance portable. So people don't need to worry if their new job has insurance. The need to cap the costs for procedures that hospitals do. That would reign in the costs that drive insurance up. They need to regulate what insurance companies charge for high risk members.

I never said we don't need to reform things. I just don't want to junk the whole thing and turn it over to the government. Everyone need to pay for what they get, we just need to find a way to make everyone able to pay for what they need.

Wow Gary - I agree with you 100%.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

If this does not make you cry, than I guess I have nothing else to say.

interesting. so who runs blue cross?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't make me cut and paste statistics of how much the uninsured and unpaid medical bills raise our premiums.

should that be the case, why are you not hot after the deadbeats instead of wanting to punish everyone?

Why am I not? People should pay if they can...that's not the point. I'm saying that there are people who don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay their medical bills. The medical providers have collectors to go after them, who have legal means to try and get them to pay, but in the end as the sign at the hospital says, they won't turn anyone away because of inability to pay - which is where the problem starts.

is this any different than people who can't pay for their house, or car?

I don't know, Charles....do you know of any car dealerships or home builders who'll not turn anyone away because of their inability to pay?

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

However you frame it, the system will remain inequitable as long as there is a profit motive. Remove the profit from the equation and care becomes the primary driver of the healthcare system. To that end, you cannot maintain a system run by private enterprise and still have care as the primary focus.

Like it or not, the health industry will only provide cost-effective healthcare once private enterprise and profit are removed from the mix, and that only leaves government, be it local, state or federal. Take away the profit and you're left with healthcare.

P

take away the profit and you'll have a difficult time finding anyone to do the job.

[Peikko 1,575]

Try Taiwan as a model for Universal Health Care, an impressive system. The only problem with it currently is that the 6% of GDP that is currently being used to pay for it is just not quite enough to provide the excellent and impressive array of health services that the Taiwanese demand. They think that a 2% increase would bring about the necessary adjustments that would take care of this problem.

"By consolidating so much — one government plan that covers everybody — Taiwan achieves remarkable efficiency.

Everybody here has to have a smart card to go to the doctor. The doctor puts it in a reader and the patient's history and medications all show up on the screen. The bill goes directly to the government insurance office and is paid automatically.

So Taiwan has the lowest administrative costs in world: less than 2 percent."

Link

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't know, Charles....do you know of any car dealerships or home builders who'll not turn anyone away because of their inability to pay?

Mortgage companies didn't turn anyone away - hence the subprime mortgage crisis.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if insurance costs were reasonable based on other financial indices, but they clearly aren't. If insurance companies were forced to provide affordable coverage to everyone (and by affordable, I mean a reasonable percentage of a household's income), even the very ill, the system would collapse, and even more insurance companies would go under. Insurance companies are for-profit businesses, which is at the root of the crisis.

Why would they collapse? They don't collapse in other countries that have affordable healthcare.

If insurance companies were forced to take on sick people who would then turn around and make gigantic claims while paying low (affordable) premiums, this would cut into profits. Many health insurance companies stay profitable by denying coverage to high-risk applicants. In a group plan scenario, economies of scale help pool the risk because healthy people (presumably) are paying into the pool. But outside group plans, the insurers need to pick and choose whom they cover to keep the profit margins high. Someone who pays $3500 a year in premiums but whose claims are $100,000K (not an uncommon scenario for a sick person) is obviously going to be a liability.

I have to disagree with that. If everyone were allowed to sign up for insurance the cost would be spread over a large number of people. Insurance companies may not make as much but they will still make money.

I am all for insurance reform. But a lot of other reforms must come with it. Malpractice reform is a big one. It drives the costs way up. In general our health care system works. It needs to be adjusted so more people can buy into it. They need to remove the "pre-exsiting conditions" clause on insurance. That would enable Ganja Girl to get her coverage without making everyone else pay for it. They need to make insurance portable. So people don't need to worry if their new job has insurance. The need to cap the costs for procedures that hospitals do. That would reign in the costs that drive insurance up. They need to regulate what insurance companies charge for high risk members.

I never said we don't need to reform things. I just don't want to junk the whole thing and turn it over to the government. Everyone need to pay for what they get, we just need to find a way to make everyone able to pay for what they need.

That's what Massachusetts is trying to do by requiring everyone to have insurance. It's crucial to get younger, healthier people into the pool to share the risk. Of course, these are the same people who have less money to put toward insurance. I understand the idea behind it, but as I mentioned, I don't think it's fair to require these individuals to buy an expensive product from a private company.

Not all health insurers make money. Look at all the HMOs that folded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the numerous mergers and acquisitions that have taken place since then. I can think of two insurers I've had in the last 10 years that are no longer in business. There are only a handful of really big insurers that have been around a while.

I know that conservatives don't like to think about it this way, but if you're paying into a pool (which everyone is, in a sense), you're paying for someone else's care. Others in Ganja Girl's hypothetical pool would also be paying for her care, and she for theirs.

The two bolded sentences are contradictory. Just because someone is paying into a larger pool doesn't mean that he or she isn't paying for someone else's care.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

Don't make me cut and paste statistics of how much the uninsured and unpaid medical bills raise our premiums.

should that be the case, why are you not hot after the deadbeats instead of wanting to punish everyone?

Why am I not? People should pay if they can...that's not the point. I'm saying that there are people who don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay their medical bills. The medical providers have collectors to go after them, who have legal means to try and get them to pay, but in the end as the sign at the hospital says, they won't turn anyone away because of inability to pay - which is where the problem starts.

is this any different than people who can't pay for their house, or car?

I don't know, Charles....do you know of any car dealerships or home builders who'll not turn anyone away because of their inability to pay?

like maybe those guys with cars for $99 down?

or maybe those shady loans we've been reading about?

[Peikko 1,575]

However you frame it, the system will remain inequitable as long as there is a profit motive. Remove the profit from the equation and care becomes the primary driver of the healthcare system. To that end, you cannot maintain a system run by private enterprise and still have care as the primary focus.

Like it or not, the health industry will only provide cost-effective healthcare once private enterprise and profit are removed from the mix, and that only leaves government, be it local, state or federal. Take away the profit and you're left with healthcare.

P

take away the profit and you'll have a difficult time finding anyone to do the job.

I am sure you would like to think that was true, but actually, if you do your research into countries that provide Universal Health care, you'll find that statment is wrong.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I also believe health care should be a right, not a privilege.

You gotta right to buy it when ever you want!