Meaghansdad Member Username: Meaghansdad
Post Number: 132 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 4:44 pm: | |
With the ever rising costs of health care and its associated co-pays, should individuals be responsible for more of their own health care costs? I think having to question the doctor/hospital billing us for our care assists us in making more prudent, responsible decisions. Toward the end of my grandmothers life, my wife and I payed the premiums and copays for her doctors visits and prescriptions. [Talking about bills,I was paying another mortgage] |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3505 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:21 pm: | |
Take it all the way....Individuals should be 100% responsible. If that means buying insurance, choosing affordable plans, paying out of pocket, whatever. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1650 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:25 pm: | |
Ccbatson, you might get some pro-unionites on this thread to beat you up with that comment. |
Frankg Member Username: Frankg
Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 5:51 pm: | |
There is a misalignment with the current insurance system and "individual responsibility." The problem is that insurance companies will charge some people higher for insurance than others, and some people can't even buy health insurance at any price. Thus, there will always be a pool of uninsured with this current system. Tax breaks, health savings accounts, price information, medical record improvements, etc., do not address this basic misalignment. |
321brian Member Username: 321brian
Post Number: 421 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 6:49 pm: | |
Some people should be charged higher than others based on past history, behavior, and family history. Someone also needs to be a deep look in to how hospitals and doctors bill patients and insurance companies. I would be all for choosing and paying for my own medical care/insurance as long as I was given what the company pays for insurance in my check every week. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3508 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 7:26 pm: | |
Charlottepaul...I expect them to try (but fail) to "beat me up" on my position. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1656 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 8:16 pm: | |
"I would be all for choosing and paying for my own medical care/insurance as long as I was given what the company pays for insurance in my check every week." Seems plausible in theory. Might cause those that are insured to adjust some expenses, but what does this solve in the long run? |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3518 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 9:05 pm: | |
Or, cut the company out of the equation entirely. The fewer middlemen, the better. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1411 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 9:48 pm: | |
Brian, YOu cannot control your family history. There may be a casual relationship between past family history and current. For example, I am sure folks who work in coal mines have a higher incidence of lung problems, but those that don't but are in the same family would not exhibit the same probablity of lung problems. Would you add those with hazardous jobs? Is it fair that soldiers, firefighters, or police officers pay more? Isn't insurance there to spread risk? |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3540 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 9:58 pm: | |
Free market solution...higher risk job=higher health risks=higher costs=higher pay to make up for the costs (if the employer doesn't bring up the pay, they will not have employees). |
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 802 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 10:25 pm: | |
quote:Free market solution...higher risk job=higher health risks=higher costs=higher pay to make up for the costs (if the employer doesn't bring up the pay, they will not have employees). You and I both know that the "free market solution" will simply be for these high-risk employers (coal mining, etc) to dump their American workforce in favor of undocumented immigrant laborers rather than raise wages for their American workforce. The employers don't have to bring up the pay, there are plenty of illegals who will do that work for the current pay and NO health benefits and we both know that the "free market" employers will welcome them with open arms. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3556 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 11:23 pm: | |
Not if illegal aliens and their employers are held accountable for breaking the law. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 122 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:59 am: | |
"Individuals should be 100% responsible" I know I have all kinds of free time to spend researching health insurance, the costs associated with medical procedures and everything else I need to know to make an educated guess about what medical insurance I need and how much it should actually cost me. Plus, with the bargaining power I have as an individual, I'm sure I'll be able to force the insurers and the doctors to give me the best price possible and not profit at my expense, especially at those times when I need immediate medical attention. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3574 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:03 am: | |
It is only complicated because of the middlemen and the different agendas of said middlemen when deciding to purchase the insurance. Absent the middle man, things would become much simpler (and cheaper). |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1658 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 7:37 am: | |
"Absent the middle man, things would become much simpler (and cheaper)." Not necessarily. Think of buying in bulk. If a company can get a plan for each of its employees from one health care insurer, it would be cheaper than if each individual employee did his or her own plan with the insurer. At least that is the word I hear on the streets. |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 382 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
The main reason insurance is so high is you're paying for people that don't have it. Plus the can't wait to sue someone trial lawyers. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3244 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:19 am: | |
quote:Not if illegal aliens and their employers are held accountable for breaking the law. Just like mining companies and meatpackers are currently held accountable? Give me a break. Your empty rhetoric is stale. Join the real world anytime you feel like it, CC. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 124 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:37 am: | |
"The main reason insurance is so high is you're paying for people that don't have it." I doubt this is the case. Sure, people who don't have insurance contribute to the high cost of health care. But I would be that it's the people who have insurance and get sick that have more of an impact on health care costs. Let's face it, the biggest change in health care is that we can now treat or at least manage illness and conditions that years ago would have killed people long before they could have racked up major bills. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 125 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:42 am: | |
"It is only complicated because of the middlemen and the different agendas of said middlemen when deciding to purchase the insurance. Absent the middle man, things would become much simpler (and cheaper)." So the real problem is the insurance companies? Not the uninsured, not the illegal aliens, not the amazing advances in medical treatments and the introduction of expensive technology and drugs, to say nothing of the cost of employing highly-trained doctors and nurses and other medical professionals? Wow, if it's that simple, where do we sign up to get rid of the insurance companies and bring affordable health care to all Americans? |
Belleislerunner Member Username: Belleislerunner
Post Number: 346 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 12:56 pm: | |
Monday chuckles... Japanese doctor says, 'Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks.' A German doctor says, 'That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks.' A British doctor says, 'In my country medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in two weeks.' The Canadian doctor, not to be outdone, interjected, 'You guys are way behind. We took a woman with no brains, sent her to Michigan where she became Governor, and now half the state is out looking for work.' |
Pythonmaster Member Username: Pythonmaster
Post Number: 94 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:36 pm: | |
Let's blame the Guv for Michigan's unemployment, that's deep thinking. |
Frankg Member Username: Frankg
Post Number: 24 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 4:20 pm: | |
Wow, if it's that simple, where do we sign up to get rid of the insurance companies and bring affordable health care to all Americans? -- Write your Congressperson and ask him or her to support the Conyers Bill, H.R. 676. |
Russix Member Username: Russix
Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 4:46 pm: | |
Americas lack of socialized health care places the burden directly on corporations which has been driving jobs out of the country for years. Health insurance needs to be split into two categories, basic necessity and luxury service. Everyone requires basic health care and everyone should pay for it(which they actually do now anyways). Why do you think so many jobs are shipped overseas? Is it really for the lower wages? The economics of transportation costs don't justify it, its health care, social security and retirement costs that justify it. Things that 3rd world nations do not provide or require for there workers. These costs create the factors that have created the exodus of American jobs overseas. Nationalize basic health care, everyone needs it, everyone pays for it. Do this and a lot of those people that leech off it will get the opportunity to have jobs and support their share of the costs. Canada is going to start building a wall to keep Americans out. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3583 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 8:37 pm: | |
Why isn't a completely private free enterprise solution better than the current mixed system and the doomed socialized medicine plan? |
Kaptansolo Member Username: Kaptansolo
Post Number: 264 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 8:40 pm: | |
Cc...would group rates be available? |
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 803 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 8:48 pm: | |
quote:Why isn't a completely private free enterprise solution better than the current mixed system and the doomed socialized medicine plan? Because the elderly can't get jobs to pay for private health insurance. Because the blind and disabled can't get jobs to pay for health insurance. Because children can't get jobs to pay for health insurance. Who will pay for these groups and countless others (mentally retarded, mentally ill, chronically ill, etc) to receive health care under a totally private health care system? Under a free enterprise system, NO ONE WILL. These people will be left to die because they cannot pay. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3611 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 9:43 pm: | |
The elderly would have to be phased out..however the future elderly will have prepared themselves. Many with disabilities can get jobs. You do them a big disservice to assume otherwise. Minors are the responsibility of the parents. The truly incapable (a true rarity) would first be assisted by family, then local community and charities, and lastly by federal government as a last resort. |
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 804 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:16 pm: | |
quote:The elderly would have to be phased out..however the future elderly will have prepared themselves. Many with disabilities can get jobs. You do them a big disservice to assume otherwise. Minors are the responsibility of the parents. The truly incapable (a true rarity) would first be assisted by family, then local community and charities, and lastly by federal government as a last resort. Under a free enterprise system, health care becomes a luxury of the affluent and part of the middle class. The poor will be priced out of health care entirely. Have you even priced a private health insurance plan lately? I don't think you know what you are talking about. A private health insurance plan for a family of four (two non-smoking adults aged 30 and two small children) would cost roughly $4500 a year. That doesn't sound too bad...until you add in the deductible (~$2500 a year and could be as high as $10,000 a year) and the coinsurance (anywhere from 20-30%) and you are looking at annual health care costs as high as $8000 to $10000. Now for a family of four who make a combined income of 45K a year, just how the FUCK are they supposed to afford that? They would be spending 1/5th of their income on health care!!! That would be on top of the mortgage, the car payments, car and home insurance, food, utilities, etc. Something's gotta give, they can't afford all those things on 45K a year and their probably going to sacrifice health coverage rather than the mortgage or the water bill. And that's with two young healthy adults. What about those with pre-existing conditions out of their control (juvenile diabetes for example)? What about older adults? Unless you are rich or a young healthy adult, you would be priced out of health care. And some people won't get covered at all. Insurance companies aren't going to accept new enrollees who have pre-existing conditions like cancer or renal failure. These people WILL DIE under your plan, hundreds of thousands of Americans who will die because the insurance companies have deemed them "too risky" or because they are too old or simply because they don't make six figures a year. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3620 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:27 pm: | |
Private health insurance today is far from a good example of a free market for a number of reasons. First, they mimic the payment and coverage systems of Medicare (socialized). Second, the mandatory employer purchasing changes the customer to the employer, not the patient. Third, pseudo choices are hardly choices at all....you can get the fee for service for 2000 a month, or the HMO for 80 dollars. Insurance is only one tool that could be used in a true free market system. Most likely insurance for catastrophic care, and out of pocket payment for lesser issues. Premiums would be much lower for the catastrophic only insurance given the lower risk, and fewer claims. Pre existing conditions would likely fall under non catastrophic care (ie Diabetes). Insurance does take into account individual rates of claims and spreads the risk amongst all purchasers making the premiums for someone with renal failure affordable (but higher than for a healthy person). |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 126 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 11:52 pm: | |
"Private health insurance today is far from a good example of a free market for a number of reasons." So let's go back to pre-New Deal that someone was claiming was the glory times for medical care. How many had private insurance before there was Medicare and all of these other socialized services wrecking the wonderful private free market system? |
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan
Post Number: 805 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 12:07 am: | |
Look, we had a totally free market system in the early 20th century (1900-1930). The whole reason Medicare and Medicaid came about in the first place was because large segments of our population were not getting health care under this system. If we go back to it, we go back to a system where the majority of the American population will receive little to no health care because they won't be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs. That 30-minute visit to the Family Practice doc will cost you $150 out of pocket. And if you cut your arm and have to go to the Emergency room for sutures, get ready for an $800 bill or higher, all out of pocket of course. Americans will simply choose to not receive health care, vital or otherwise, because of the high cost. Mortality and morbidity rates would SKYROCKET and our population health would approach third world levels. Everything I have stated has been proven in countless studies. Americans DO avoid necessary health care when they have to pay out of pocket. Americans without health insurance DO have atrocious health outcomes compared to the insured. And going by the latest census data regarding median family income, the average American CANNOT afford a comprehensive private health insurance plan without federal subsidy. These are the facts, what you are arguing (whether you admit it or not) is social darwinism where the weak, the sick, the poor, the old, and the rest of the undesirables are left to die so that the strong may flourish. |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3625 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 8:44 pm: | |
Novine, forget insurance in that context. You go to the Doctor, or hospital, a service is rendered, you get a bill, you pay (or arrange terms of payment). |
Dave Member Username: Dave
Post Number: 166 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 10:25 am: | |
Way back in the sixties (before Medicaid) I worked in a drugstore. Back then, most medicine was reasonably priced and much less was prescribed. Someone walked in the door with a prescription that they needed. If they didn't have enough money to pay for it, the druggist was forced to let them charge it even though he knew they would never be able to pay, or to send them away without medicine he knew they needed. I don't want to go back to that. dave |
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 3710 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:30 pm: | |
In the rare instance that someone needs the medicine to stay healthy/out of a hospital and could not afford it, emergency mechanisms are available. If that is the case, your scenario sounds good to me Dave. |