Slithr

My primary problems with the Health Care bill are philosophical, since, at this point, I haven't read it. I really don't think the government needs to be in the insurance business. The government's job is to regulate private enterprise, where needed, not supplant it. Private enterprise will always to the job faster, better and cheaper than the government. There are some things that the government needs to do that are not necessarily money making opportunities and where national interests are affected, defense is one of those areas. The Federal Goverment has absolutely no constitutional authority to force people to buy health insurance or provide that insurance.

There are some problems that need to addressed. Among them are the cost of insurance, what do do about pre-existing conditions, how to get employers out of the mix, how to get more people covered (not sure this is a worthy goal in itself).

When I was a children, my family had health insurance, but it was catastrophic coverage, not first dollar coverage. I doubt first dollar coverage even existed back then. So when you went to the doctor you paid the bill. If you had to have surgery or cancer treatment, something expensive, then once the deductable had been satisfied, the usual terms were 80% coverage and 20% out of your pocket. There should be enough coverage around to custom tailor coverage to your needs.

Having people pay for first dollar coverage would do a couple of things. They would be a little less likely to go to the doctor every time they had a runny nose. The cost would probably go down, because the doctor would have a whole lot less paperwork to file and money to collect from insurance companies, etc. If there are some docs on here it would be interesting to know what percentage of the gross goes to paperwork and collections from insurance companies. People would be able to shop for the doctor of their choice because they wouldn't be limited by who signed up with their insurance company. If you believed your doctor charged too much, you would be free to go down the street and try someone else. The truly indigent would need some help here and the answer might be some sort of first dollar coveage supplied by the government for the truly needy. Not sure how this would work. Needs based, whatever.

If there was a desire to help people pay for their insurance, you could give individuals the same deal that companies have today and make the cost of insurance tax deductable, maybe an escalating partial credit for those under a certain income. That might be at least a partial solution for the problem above that would keep the government out of the insurance business. Allowing companies to incorporate where they want and sell insurance nation wide should also help the cost structure. If employers didn't have to provide coverage for their employees, one would hope that the ones who do would pass whatever they are currently spending to the employees as a pay raise, since those funds are part of the current compensation package.

Pre-existing conditions are tough, but if you had your own insurance and didn't have to change insurers every time you changed jobs, then the chances of running into the problem are lessened somewhat. Asking a health insurance company to take on someone with a pre-existing condition is a little like asking a fire insurance company to take on someone who's house is currently on fire. You can only take on so many before you start having financial problems. However, this may be another place that the government can help out with direct funds to the insurance company to get the company past the normal waiting period or whatever with respect to pre-existing conditions so that the customer pays the normal rate and can expect to be accepted given all the usual stuff. There should be some restrictions to keep people from just signing up when they have a problem.

Tort reform will also help drive down the cost of medicine. I don't mind seeing a doctor get hammered for negligence, but not every negative outcome is the fault of the doctor/hospital, whatever. Things happen. A lot of times doctors are ordering tests as much for the lawyers as they are for the patient. That is a problem. Texas passed a pretty significant tort reform act. In fact, I think some aspects of it went too far. But they didn't check with me before they passed it. In any case, there is a middle ground that should protect the consumer and allow the doctor to practice without looking over his shoulder all the time. In addition, the AMA and state licensing authorities should be stricter once a doctor has shown an inability to practice without hurting people.


Anyway, I'm sure this is getting boring at this point. Just some thoughts.

turbosix

we cant even have a civil fender rolling thread.... i doubt this will go anywhere pleasant.

R Legend

I say lock it and keep it in the off topic area