Is there anyone it doesn’t benefit?
My support depends on what the insurance covers and how much it costs. I am very healthy, I’m covered by Workers’ Comp while on the job, and I’d be eligible for no-cost-to-me treatment at a VA hospital (50 miles away). So I’m pretty much covered even though I don’t have an actual insurance policy. I’d do my part and pay $100-$200 per month for good health insurance.
Those of us who would rather pay for our own health care than ‘give’ our money to the rapacious blood sucking parasites that make up the health insurance industry.
And to me, this is the problem I have with making insurance ‘mandatory’ - IMHO, we should be attempting to regulate the industry such that people that want/need it, can get insurance.
Traditionally, those that want/need it the most, are those most likely to not be able to obtain it - the lower income, those with pre-existing conditions.
I know of too many people that cant get the healthcare they need due to lack of insurance (income and pre-existing conditions). I don’t know of anyone that would be bennefited by making it ‘mandatory’ - other than the insurance providors themselves.
The problem isnt that people dont have insurance, its that insurance is ‘required’ to get quality/timely care.
Well the reason to make it mandatory (or funded by govt) is that if we don’t do so the risk-pool will be full of people who require more medical care, so the costs will go up. Then we still have the case of what to do if a person without coverage has a car accident or heart attack. Do we just say “tough luck”, make them pay full cost (which may be more than their entire net worth), or just be suckers and pay for them anyway?
This is one of the largest problems that needs to be solved. I use the services of a grocer, baker, hairsylist, lawyer, auto mechanic, plumber, a/c repairman, septic guy, landscaper, etc., infinity ad nausem… without needing a system of “insurance” to compensate these people for their time.
I also can get an upfront, published, and advertised quote before the services are performed so I can compare rates with others and negotiate for the best prices.
Why can’t I do this with a doctor?
I can understand insurance for catastrophic and emergency conditions where you can’t negotiate on price, but that model is sustainable because not everyone will use it.
It would be like trying to afford homeowners insurance if everyone’s house was guaranteed to burn down at some point.
I think a model where everyone is automatically covered works better. The health insurance levy is built in to the income tax rate. Those who have health insurance can claim that money back at tax time. Ya know… the way most of the other developed countries do it.
I’d be in favor of universal catastrophic medical insurance combined with some way to help those without means (and especially their kids) pay for routine care.
Well, lets look at two factors -
1.) what people did before insurance started to become more ‘common’ -
2.) That insurance companies can negotiate the fees.
In the first case, people found a way to deal with the costs - payment plans, etc. I never had insurance growing up and it was a fairly new thing in the 80s for people to have anything other than major medical/accident type insurance. So, while there will always be some group of accident/unexpected expenses, we seemed to make it work before.
In the second case - I’m always amazed when I get the bills/claim paperwork in and I see "service X costs $5000 - insurance adjustment “$4400” - insurance pays “$480” you owe “$120”… seems to me right there that if the insurance companies can discount the amounts that_much that there is already room to reduce the overall cost of healthcare and make things more affordable - right out of the gates.
Secondly, as to costs - did you ever notice that when DVD’s cut prices sales went up? Seems to me that if basic procedures - that most poeple need - we’re made affordable - more people would have them - economies of scale come into play. (X-rays, Mamograms, MRIs, etc - where the equipment/tech is a given, cost should become pretty minimal).
Damn fine post. I would support sweeping health care reform if it encouraged consumers to move away from comprehensive insurance.
I realize that I had crappy insurance but it was expensive and worthless to me. That’s why I discontinued my health insurance in December. I’m 24 and while I’m hardly indestructible, I was already paying for any significant health care out of pocket, I figured I might as well bank those monthly premiums.
If health care costs weren’t so inflated I’d go in for a yearly gyno exam. I would visit a doctor for colds instead of buying a shitload of Mexican amoxicillin and treating myself.
If we’re going to apply sweeping changes to the system, why don’t we kick health insurance to the curb?
I think that is what they tried to do with HSAs and high deductible plans. The problem is that only a small minority of people use them.
When most people go to the doctor and have a $20 copay regardless, then there is no consumer oversight if he orders thousands of dollars of tests. An EKG? Sure. I’m here anyways and want to be sure that my heart is okay. You get an EKG, but the guy without insurance can’t afford the several hundred dollars for it, so he goes without.
If everyone was shopping the price of that EKG, you would have them setup in your local Wal-Mart for everyone to pay a nominal fee to use.
Right, but what about the people who can’t afford insurance? If they can’t afford the fines, and I haven’t seen any plan that offers free coverage…even the public option that’s being talked about (if it’s even still in) is still going to charge fees and be self sustaining.
My understanding is that this fine is not couple with any sort of public option, which just makes no sense to me.
Right. If there is no public option, then I have to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Even if the cheapest policy out there is $10,000/month, I have to pay it or get fined.
However, if a dirt cheap public option is available, then there is no requirement to buy it
?!?!?
I don’t get it. What are you talking about?
That said, I could have been more clear. My post should have been:
*Sooner the better.
Not that there is any validity to the notion that having an “insurance of last resort” actually would lead to the demise of the insurance industry.*
That’s wasted money. Antibiotics are useless against cold viruses.
First, why should an EKG test be hundreds/thousands of dollars? Those machines are fairly common, sit in the corner most of the time, etc - they use a little bit of paper (or write to a computer file), and some little sticky tape on the end to hold the leads down.
I see about $5 worth of cost per test…after the initial capital purchase.
Had they been “reasonably” avaialbe - it might have helped a friend of mine - who in otherwise perfect health - just had a relatively major heart attack - at 36. (required a stint, soemthing about a thrombosis and 80% blockage to an artery). When he went to the dr initially claiming chest pain, the dr dismissed it - he should’ve run an EKG but it “cost money” and the guy had no history of a heart issue.
So… while there may be a “run on EKG tests” - the reality is that it should still be up to the Dr and the Patient to decide those tests.
Settting up more “Insurance Companies” and Middle-men is not the solution here, especially if they are “for profit” organizations. Insurance is something you use to offset the costs of the “un-expected” you’re betting something ‘might’ happen, the insurance company is betting it wont - Health Care, in general, is expected and generally routine - or it should be.
Mandating insurance coverage will do little to get people to go to the Doctor.
Lowering overall costs - will.
That is about as unconstitutional as the seat belt laws…
Oh wait!
It only makes sense if it is combined with a program of subsidies for low income people and a ban on not issuing insurance based on pre-existing conditions, both of which seem to be floating around.
This is exactly what Hillary and Obama disagreed on during the campaign - and where Obama was wrong. Healthy people who correctly believe that the chances are they will use less medical coverage than they pay in are gaming the system, because they will inevitably need more coverage as they get older. (Unless they conveniently die inexpensively at a young age.) This is exactly why auto insurance is mandatory. You could have voluntary insurance with policies that pay even if you are not at fault and get hit, but people doing damage with no insurance will no doubt get sued and go bankrupt, and good drivers will opt out and reduce the risk pool. Health insurance is tougher since you don’t hurt anyone else (except the sucker holding the bag when you can’t pay) but the principle is the same.
Hope you have a spare $50K floating around, just in case.