HEALTH CARE INFO BLITZ
What if we had a discussion about Health Insurance that just had two topics: What does it cover; and What are the premiums (no matter who is paying them)?
That would be kind of a good place to start.
I mean, the conversation would still end up "That's Socialism!" and "You're a heard-hearted baby-killing, family bankrupting smugball!" But at least we could start with a business model.
Just sayin....
posted by UMRBlog @ 08:55
14 comments
14 Comments:
Maybe some of your more enlightened commentators can explain to us the morality, especially Christian morality as expressed in the social gospel of St. Matthew, of profiting and/or profiteering on the backs of the ill and the elderly.
I guess that means you graduated from the annoyingly objective concepts of "covered services" and "premium requirements." Thus, you can move on to theological concepts.
Congratulations. You're a whiz.
TYFCB
More enlightened? That must mean me. LOL
If you would not work, neither should you eat ... if we want to use the Bible ... that solves everything ... unemployed people don't get to eat.
But to UMR ... we already have 85% covered that know what does it cost and what does it cover ... it is only an additional 7% that we are playing political games with, and the current two trillion plan makes thing worse.
There should be some reform of insurance companies that drop people when they finally make a claim, and use Wal-Mart tactics to work down drug prices, and how 'bout some tort reform.
But as is, the private sector prices are skyrocketing, largely to cover the shortfall in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as still lining the pockets of trial lawyers and pill makers and other special interests.
Special interests are still buying off our congressmen ...
CORRUPTION, not socialism or free market ... both systems need prosecution of the criminals.
Well, UMR, thanks for not answering my original question. Of course, the civilized world long ago decided that health care was a human right beneficial to society as a whole, thus some form of single payer for all. In this country, health care is deemed a privilege for which, in its grossest form, you pay or die, although as W said, you can always go to the ER. These too are annoying objective concepts I assume you can understand.
What is covered is really the huge emotional block that holds up reform. As much as I want universal health care, and ultimately think govt run healthcare is the only viable option to achieve that goal- there is the danger that coverage will become a matter of policy rather than physician-patient dependent. It is already that way in the current proposals where abortion isn't covered. While I don't support abortion so I'm glad it's not covered, it is problematic for the majority of the voters to decide what medical care you receive.
0708,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. However indirectly, at least you touched on the topic. Thank you.
TYFCB
All,
Conceding the morality argument for the moment, there are many business models out there (Germany, all private; Canada, all Public). Deciding what the USA's business model should be BEGINS with my two questions: What is to be covered and How much are the premiums (no matter by whom paid).
You can't argue for the "What" without dealing with the "How".
TYFCB
Sorry,UMR, deciding the U.S. business model does NOT begin with the what and how. It begins with deciding whether health care is a right or a privilege for the simple reason that deciding the what and how flows from the answer to the basic question. Why? Because the what and how will differ according to whether health care is a right or a privilege. Consider the difference in what and how between, say, non-profit Mayo Clinic and for-profit QMG.
Let's see if we can agree on this much: The places that do treat Medical Care Insurance/Payment as a RIGHT, still deliver it in different ways.
Germany is all private insurance and mixture of public and private health service providers. Japan is all State Insurance and all Private providers.
A german never makes a co-pay. A Frenchman makes a copay every time he goes to the doc but gets the copay back from insurance later.
Again, "conceding the moral question" There is still a lot to decide that cannot be sensibly decided without grasping "What's covered" (Not Who, What) and "How much per haid".
You brush aside the coverage and cost questions as if they were mere details but, even if the moral question is Step 1, you can't go to step two without quantifying the other two questions.
TYFCB and for your sincere input.
Give the consumer the choice of what does "it" cost and what does "it" cover, but make his own pocketbook be part of the equation. There needs to be at least an element of "free market", not just "all you can eat" for "free".
While Obama had a show of doctors at the White House, they were hand picked and they had no voice. Beck had a good show with doctors where the doctors actually spoke.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/32031/
Direct patient/doctor decisions and
patient participation in cost
were two important points they seemed to agree on, as well as a critical need for some tort reform.
Forcing a Medicaid price structure on doctors would be disastrous, as they operate at a loss on that schedule. That is the current plan for the gov option, which basically pushes the cost on doctors and those that want to keep private insurance, while maintaining the revenue stream for special interests.
I don't get your insistence on trying to determine price as a starting point ... that is what Medicare does, and Medicaid, and it is not workable for the whole system.
Price controls don't work. The "free market" portion of the system is subsidizing the price controls part, and even the private part has been knee capped in many ways (gov reg's, protocols, no tort reform, etc).
M&M both end up with overuse of the system, as patients don't usually have to pay the 20% copay, and I guess there is no copay with Medicaid.
Step one is to clear obstacles from the doctor/patient care/cost decision/obligation. They are ultimately the provider and payer. Congress (and others) want to intervene for their own special interests.
Maybe we need doctors reforming lawyers/congress, and determining what services attorneys should provide at a loss, instead of the other way around.
I'll have to back a look at where I said anything about "price controls".
TYFCB
Your premise is to determine (set?) coverage and price, instead of free market, where price will vary by provider, as will coverage.
Price control is, "let's start with how much jeans cost, and how much they cover", as opposed to shopping around.
Gosh, you are a hardhead.
Every legislation starts as a bill, which is nothing more than a hypothetical of some law that might be passed someday.
My premise is that we start with a bill (or proposal) that says, "If we assume we cover these servicesm using today's figures and today's dollars, the premium will be, based on data available....This much."
You are using "determine" to mean "dictate" because it fits into your little, polemic theme. I am using "determine" to mean "do math."
Now, I'm sure this will generate some Bible verses from you banning Math, but that is what I'm suggesting. Isn't that better than having a discussion about a bunch of loose concepts that do not lend themselves to pencil/paper/spreadsheet?
After you do the math, then you can have the scintillating "Free Market" discussion for which you're itching and its effect on the prospective prices. I am suggesting the process be Model, Math, Debate instead of Debate, Model, Debate, Model, Debate, NameCalling, Model, Debate.
TYFCB
Don't we already have what you are suggesting? The CBO is doing estimates of various plans with various promises. We already have business models, so I don't see why you say "at least we could start with a business model".
The subterfuge to make it "balance" involves promises to cut $400 billion from Medicare, plus income from forcing people to buy insurance, and tax on "cadillac plans". Those numbers are all likely very wrong.
Much more of the unfunded liability will be pushed off on state Medicaid, which will then go back to congress for relief as the states go bankrupt. And I think promises count on a more vibrant economy.
I'm not sure what you're reading if you don't see CBO and various groups are already running the numbers through spreadsheets ... garbage in/garbage out.
But maybe I'm still missing your point ... sorry. Any honest spreadsheet will show this current scheme will cost at least $two trillion (as Harry Reid stated) and probably much more, while still leaving many not covered.
My only Bible verse was sarcasm/humor in response to the first post. I'm assuming "both sides" here are trying to find a moral option. But I do feel special interests are driving the current proposals, which is why they are meeting behind closed doors.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home