It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Health Care Discussion

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Here is the initial question:

Would you be willing to pay money into an insurance policy that then allowed you to go into any Hospital or Doctor office in the country that you choose, and get full treatment for no out of pocket cost at all?

So you pay into this insurance policy, and when you are at home, you can go to the Dr. or Hospital of your choice, and all fees and expenses are covered. No deductible, no co-pay, nothing... the insurance policy takes care of it all.

And if you are on the road, you can still go into any Hospital or Dr. office (in the US), and get the same deal: no out of pocket expense.

Would you go for this? Why or why not?




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This question is akin to "would you be willing to pay for, and drive a Lamborghini". Or, "would you like to have caviar for breakfast, on any given day, and pay for it to be freshly delivered from the Caspian".



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


This is the initial question of what may turn out to be a discussion of some value.

To paraphrase Perry Mason:

"I will establish the relevance shortly"


[edit on 6-10-2008 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Hospitals and insurance companies have major pacs in washington. They scrub each others backs.
If Canada can do it with a much smaller gmp than we, we should be able to do it.
They just care not to. It is big business. To the detriment of many millions of uninsured or unisurable Americans. If you have noticed the AMA has launched commercials for an ad hoc on the matter.

[edit on 10/6/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Generally speaking, I would say yes. It would depend on the price, though. If it's more expensive than my current insurance, then no. I would live with the restrictions of certain doctors and copays.

So, that's the answer to your question... It depends.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Generally speaking, I would say yes. It would depend on the price, though. If it's more expensive than my current insurance, then no.


Well, do you even doubt that it would be a lot more expensive?

And that's why I posted the Lamborghini example.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
It's a hypothetical question. So I have no idea how much it's going to cost me.
Maybe it's a special deal.

Come on, OMS, elaborate.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   


OK, here's the deal... I have my very own idea for a health care solution in the US, but I wanted to get some ideas out there, because of the frequent panic about "socialized health care".

So here's my idea:

A tax on all income, regardless of what kind, that goes into a fund that cannot be stolen from like SS is... then this fund is used to pay for health care for anybody that needs it.

Or it could be a tax on all purchases... either side.

I have no idea if it would work in terms of the actual numbers... it might be that this would require a 98% tax, which clearly would not work. But maybe it would be 2%... or it could be offset with some kind of co-pay plan.

But the deal is, everybody still gets to go to any Dr. in the country, and they no longer have to pay any health insurance premiums other than this hypothetical tax.

Yeah, it is a tax increase, but for many is offset by an insurance premium decrease.

Just an idea...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I like it! And I would definitely be willing to do something like that.

I think the "fears" of socialized health care are unfounded. Providing we could do a good job and get to the doctor without waiting a month or 2, I think it's a great idea.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


a) It'd be very difficult to restructure the existing compensation practices which have the coverage included implcitely
b) you are proposing a parallel tax, to the existing system
c) doctors charge only a fraction of their nominal charge under their agreements with companies like CIGNA and others (group purchasing power, effectively) -- this will be gone under what you propose

I personally have fairly good doctors for myself and my family (based on reviews as well as personal experience). Yes, I did have to pay full price once when there I couldn't wait and all CIGNA-accredited physicians were booked. By and large, the system works for me.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
'the system works fine for me'.
The system worked fine for me too. For 25 yrs. Low copays. Option of usually at least three plans. Low copays for meds.

Until you find yourself in the crack of a sidewalk. Fifteen years ago I thought I was bullet proof. Now I say a prayer to get myself out of the bathtub.

So should I just take a long walk lol, if I could, out to the forest when old and sick to be eaten by the wildlife like the Indians so I do not burden the community?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
a) It'd be very difficult to restructure the existing compensation practices which have the coverage included implcitely


Yes, there would be some work involved in shifting over to this system. However, I believe this is well within the capabilities of US data management systems.



b) you are proposing a parallel tax, to the existing system


Correct. The tax idea is the funding for this insurance policy.



c) doctors charge only a fraction of their nominal charge under their agreements with companies like CIGNA and others (group purchasing power, effectively) -- this will be gone under what you propose


This outlines one of the problems of the current system. People who have insurance get lower rates from medical, while those that do not have insurance and have the most need for lower rates, pay full price. Which they often cannot do, so it feeds back into the insured portion of the population, which raises premium rates.

And if large groups such as CIGNA can use group purchasing power to get lower rates, then an insurance system that included every person in the US would have even more bargaining power.



I personally have fairly good doctors for myself and my family (based on reviews as well as personal experience). Yes, I did have to pay full price once when there I couldn't wait and all CIGNA-accredited physicians were booked. By and large, the system works for me.


At the moment, I also have excellent insurance coverage. Until I lose my job, or my employer decides to change it. The whole point of this plan (which I fully acknowledge may not be workable) is to provide insurance to everybody, not just those of us who have good insurance at the moment.

This idea would make no changes at all to which Dr. you or your family (or me or mine) may choose to see.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Universal health care coverage. I like it!

As it is right now, far to many people have insufficient or no coverage at all. Proper health care should be viewed as a basic human right. It should be the government's responsibility to attend to the proper health care needs of its' citizens. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

I would certainly support this.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Forget about it, my friend from across the pond!

I pay exorbitant taxes to the government or to be more precise, the government takes exorbitant taxes from me in order to fund the dinosaur that is called the NHS.

The premise is that I can use the NHS at any time for any illness, at any location within the country and indeed the EU.

I still have private medical insurance... that alone should tell you something.

State run systems are inherently monopolies. There is no incentive for individual hospitals to perform better, since their status is secure in the market.

The result is unclean wards, rampant resistant infective agents, huge waiting lists (up to 6 months), a postcode lottery for drugs, the most effective and expensive drugs are denied to patients (notably herceptin), implant quality is highly sub-par, doctors are overworked, nurses are underpaid, you have to wait until 4 days before an appointment so the GP can keep their waiting time list targets in check, and yes, the food sucks.

State run healthcare is not a good idea. At all.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


This is not state-run health care. All Drs and hospitals are still working in a free-market style system... if they do a crappy job, nobody will go to them and they will (ideally) go out of business. Not one bit of government guarantee of anybody's place in the market.

This is merely a change in how insurance is funded and distributed. Everybody that has any form of income (if we assume the income side of the equation) pays, and everybody in the country benefits.

It (again, ideally) would be the same as the private insurance you have...



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


So it would be a mandated form of insurance... sorta like our NI and your FICA?

I dont think thats possible, the costs would be prohibitively high.

Its a great item for santa's list but it can never be so. In principle it is the same as state run healthcare.

Presumably if it is a semi-free market system then people would only opt to go for the most successful hospitals, and those that cost the highest. How can this work? There cant be an automatic payment from the mandated insurance system for whatever, whereever treatment for this reason. The only choice would be payment via some sort of medicare/ medicaid DRG system = cost cutting = poor quality of healthcare.




top topics



 
0

log in

join