My look at US healthcare

Health insurance needs to be like car insurance, I can buy from 200 different companies.

We need tort reform, no more frivolous lawsuits.

Three strikes and you are out, if a Dr. is convicted 3 times of negligent malpractice, they lose their license, nationwide.

I know this is a hard one for everyone, but the high cost of end of life care needs to be addressed. I was the primary caregiver for my grandfather the last 6 months of his life, I hope I saved the gov't a bunch of money by refusing BS tests and procedures.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Tort reform, in my opinion, is not the answer. If a dr messes someone up for life, the dr (insurance) is off the hook for let's say $250,000. Then the hurt individual is off the the tax payer to receive further treatment and what if they can't work because of a dr.'s mistake? This should come from the dr.'s insurance.

Do you have numbers to back up your opinion?

We need tort reform, no more frivolous lawsuits.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Tort reform, in my opinion, is not the answer. If a dr messes someone up for life, the dr (insurance) is off the hook for let's say $250,000. Then the hurt individual is off the the tax payer to receive further treatment and what if they can't work because of a dr.'s mistake? This should come from the dr.'s insurance.

Do you have numbers to back up your opinion?

We need tort reform, no more frivolous lawsuits.

No hardcore stats, personal experience, and interactions with individuals. While I would agree that if a Dr. screws someone up big time they or their insurance should pay. I am basing my opinions on conversations with a couple of my orthepedists and physical therapy folks.

Personal experience, I had a gastric bleed in 2005, spent 42 hours in ICU, bill was over 15 K, I had no insurance, and not signed up with VA at that point. I asked for a breakout of the bill, there were 12 vein puncture charges, although they did everything with the two IV's they started when I entered the hospital. I had lost so much blood, they tried to give me a transfusion, I had a reaction, most likely wrong blood type.

A couple of years later, I got this nasty notice from the local courts, that I was being sued. Not working at the time due to an injury, I personally answered the court, and explained all of the details, judge must have tossed it out, as I have never heard another word in 12 years.

you want to fix our healthcare... the only way we will end up with anything remotely decent is to force congress onto the same plans we get...

It will never happen, since that would require enough people to stay engaged with politics and vote out the ones that vote party over the country.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I have a hard time nailing down any numbers, but it does stand to reason that if the damages cause long term damage and is very expensive, some one is going to pay. Either the person (dr.) who caused it or the tax payers.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Half the country will pay for the other half regardless. Workers and producers will be taxed to pay for the non-workers and non-producers. It will be an expensive tax because there are a helluva lot of the latter.
Already about 50% of babies born here are financed by Medicaid.
There will be fraud, waste, and abuse because....well, it will be government run.
It's a conundrum. It is something we have to grapple with ideologically, morally, and economically.

You have models all over the world to choose from. Universal Health Care works in other places...why not the US? Cut out the insurance companies except for supplemental...Dental, Vision Care, Drugs...is how we do it. Generally offered in a Benefits Package by employers. Not perfect, but better than what you have now.

Demand better! You have mid-terms coming up.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Universal basic coverage which you can enhance commercially?

That's Medicare. Pretty much. So apply the concept to the entire population.

a reply to: craterman

Most if not all you mentioned is already against Federal and State law pertaining to price fixing, price collusion, monopolistic practices and consumer laws.

Majority of these laws have existed for more than 100 years.

77' Supreme Court case was lost by insurance companies attempting to gain immunities from these laws.

None of the medical industry has immunity from these laws.

That law is not applied shows how deeply in politicians pockets this entire industry really is.

We're these laws applied costs would drop like a rock making all but catastrophic insurance unnecessary for majority of people.

The nation is being screwed by both sides in this matter.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Universal basic coverage which you can enhance commercially?
That's Medicare. Pretty much. So apply the concept to the entire population.

We consider this American conversation to be crazy talk.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Half the country will pay for the other half regardless. Workers and producers will be taxed to pay for the non-workers and non-producers. It will be an expensive tax because there are a helluva lot of the latter.

Already about 50% of babies born here are financed by Medicaid.

There will be fraud, waste, and abuse because....well, it will be government run.

It's a conundrum. It is something we have to grapple with ideologically, morally, and economically.

According to google there is about 124,000,000 full time workers in the US.
If each of us workers paid $500 a year in taxes for healthcare, the entire country could make $62,000,000,000 a year.
That should pretty much cover everyone.

Or double it and make it $124 billion.
Or triple it. Still, $2,000 a year out of our taxes. Maybe keep taxes where they are and just take some of that $2,000 away from the bloated military budget.

Come on lets do this already

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I think you'll be needing some more zeroes.

In 2015, U.S. health care spending increased 5.8 percent to reach $3.2 trillion

www.cms.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I think you'll be needing some more zeroes.

In 2015, U.S. health care spending increased 5.8 percent to reach $3.2 trillion

I think the medication and procedures are too expensive.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Some are, certainly. And a single payer system could have an effect on that. Not sure if it would make up those extra zeroes.

But no one would expect that the system would not involve a significant tax increase.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

I think you'll be needing some more zeroes.

In 2015, U.S. health care spending increased 5.8 percent to reach $3.2 trillion

I think the medication and procedures are too expensive.

The Fed is rarely the answer...

A medicare approved doctor will have to charge an increased fee... saw a comparison... if the guy choose medicare approved for knee surgery 6700 was going to be the cost... he went to a surgery center that will not take Medicare and paid 1600 for the same procedure cash.

the fed will never make a move against the insurance companies so bloated costs are here to stay.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

200 different companies is the problem right now with the Private sector even existing. The idea was to move towards Canada's system. Ultimately if you want to insure something, and 1 company exists the idea is sound, but as soon as you have 2 companies, everyone is paying, but only 50% of the time will a company make a payout, and while this is beneficial for insurance companies and business, this only inflates the market like a bubble with excess immobile money to cover expanding edges, while people are covered less to promote growth. Insurance as an industry only grows like a blob if there is an unnecessary amount of them. Things that inherently have loss and rely on efficiency don't need the added exploit of competition. They also have no product, they are a money freeze that pays out if you pay in. Standard competition doesn't apply in so many ways it's insane, but the core issue won't be it won't eliminated until the subsidy pool is as conglomerate as possible.

You want to know why Auto Insurance is doing so well? Because it's shrinking in options and GIECO isn't being boycotted because it's not named after a black President, as they attempt to scuttle out the remaining private insurance and make it cheap for everyone. It also could save you 15%, or more on your car insurance.

a reply to: MacK80

GIECO isn't being boycotted because it's named after a black President

Wait.What? Which black president?

Government Employees Insurance Company. Puzzled, are you? Well, the name goes back to the beginnings of our company. Founder Leo Goodwin first targeted a customer base of U.S. government employees and military personnel. Today, of course, GEICO has grown to provide insurance to a wide range of customers.

www.geico.com...


heh.

a reply to: Phage

Opps typo. It isn't*

Offer membership in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to all Americans for the same payroll contribution that Federal employees pay.

Let the market sort itself out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Offer membership in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to all Americans for the same payroll contribution that Federal employees pay.

Let the market sort itself out.

See here is the genius though: That would literally work, people just can't stick to one idea and focus.

It's almost like it's supposed to be broken at this level of movement.

The attractiveness of that particular idea is easily 8/10 though in a room of 1's and 0's on the whole scene.