And this is one of the reasons (not the only one*), why you spend more per capita than any other country, for outcomes that are not better than many countries with UHC.
Paying for only emergency care for a significant portion of society will cost you more in the long run than if you agreed to pay for preventative medicine and longer term care.
The poor person who does not get their ACL tended to because it’s not an “emergency” will likely be unemployed or under employed, and may become a drain on society by going on welfare. Whereas with a system that pays for more than “emergent” care, we get that same person on their feet, so to speak, with a better chance of being independent and contributing to society.
Pre-natal checkups and “well baby” visits will end up saving money in the long run. It leads to fewer emergency room visits.
In a UHC environment, the focus is on “making everyone well” In a for-profit insurance environment, the focus will necessarily be on “making our good clients well and kicking our non-profit making clients to the curb”
*other reasons why the US system costs more would include insurance company profits (yes, not huge, but present), Insurance company costs (salaries for executives, employees to check, double check and deny claims) inefficiencies due to doctors having to hire staff to deal with multiple insurance companies, advertising for private health concerns, duplication of services at competing hospitals, litigation costs with the insurance companies and more.
I think that by “substantive” you probably mean something along the lines of “Okay, what’s the best way to institute a public option of sort”. And that starts the conversation too far down the road.
I’ll ask you, why not FIRST institute a bunch of small changes, like tort reform, buying insurance over state lines and not tying it to an employer, having the government help fund a catastrophic illness insurance pool, etc. These things may work. If they don’t, I, for one, would be MUCH more open to the ides the dems are advocating. Why, oh why, is this not a better route to go?
I had an accident and tore my ACL. With therapy and exercises I was able to get to the point where I could do pretty much everything except certain sports. I had the operation in order for me to do those things. It had nothing to do with work. Why should you pay the $40,000 it cost (there were complications) for me to be able to ski?
No, I’m asking for anything more than the simple “No” that the Republicans have limited their “contribution” to. Anything at all other than that would be substantive.
Why not first implement a bunch of small changes like expanding coverage and ending denials of coverage, while reducing the deficit in the bargain? IOW, why do you oppose the Senate bill?
And so may those things. So which set should we try first, hmm?
Because, essentially, your proposal is imaginary. Your party has refused to advance it or even consider it. Maybe you should try convincing the other party to include it and promise to support the package as a result?
Well, you shouldn’t have a child if you can’t afford to take care of him/her. But I could see some basic care extended to the children of the irresponsible.
As already stated, they’d all rush to the minimum-regulation state, just as the credit card industry has. Any who didn’t would be priced out of business, similarly.
I would assume, since a medical condition cannot be disclosed during hiring, it would be discriminatory for someone to be hired with insurance as a benefit, then denied that benefit after a medical condition is disclosed.
Are there any facts in evidence that indicate that someone who is considered to be uninsurable would, in fact, not be eligible for insurance through an employer?
Again, we’re dealing with the margins. Being wealthy isn’t a requirement for paying for your own health care. We’re far from wealthy, and we have our regular medical costs in hand without a regular insurance plan.
If you’re concerned about a catastrophic medical problem, then how do you feel about the gov providing catastrophic coverage, and leaving insurance companies to sell gap insurance?
"Common sense is usually just another way of saying “unsupported assertion.”
Many not-for-profit insurers are locally-based and unable to move. Many for-profit ones would register in another state while keeping their operations local. In any case, if there aren’t at least dozens of different insurers competing, then how is competition supposed to improve affordability? If the market remains three or four companies, how will consumers have more choices? Also, there is really no way for a consumer to exercise informed choice in the health insurance market, since there is no way to predict what sort of coverage he will need (aside from that gender reassignment surgery thing) during the time he has the policy, unless of course the consumer actually has a pre-existing condition.
I thought we were talking about employer insurance, not an individual policy. Did I miss something?
And, yes, I have. My family is currently covered under an HSA/catastrophic policy, which I put together completely on my own. Prior to that, I worked with both my employer and my husband’s employer re: insurance coverage.
Do you have any numbers about how many uninsured are turned down, after being hired, based on being uninsurable?
You would be wrong about that. This is the whole controversy about pre-existing conditions. You could eliminate this discrimination with a national law, but of course then no one would get insurance until they needed it, which would mean they wouldn’t be paying into the system until they were already drawing from it, substantially.
Reducing competition by eliminating competitors and competitive advantages is quintessentially oligopolistic.
Huh? The competition would be between states, to offer the insurance companies the most profitable environment possible for them. There would be no incentive for them to reduce prices at all, just as there isn’t much now. Remember that their profits depend on minimizing services to patients, and that an individual rarely has an option anyway other than the single provider their employer contracts with. And, if they’re unemployed, effectively no option at all.
And economics? Are you familiar with supply and demand?
Okay, for the last time, if you can purchase insurance ACROSS state lines then companies will have to compete and costs will decrease as compared to the system we now have. Why do you think there will only be 3 or 4 companies left?
And, of course consumers can make informed choices concerning health insurance. What is the roadblock to this? Start with the basics and work your way up to what you can afford. Catastrophic coverage…check. Do I really need a plan that pays for my annual checkup? Nope. See, not that difficult.
Even if this will lead (or has led) to higher costs per capita for your society as a whole?
Even if this will lead (or has led) to poorer health outcomes for your society as a whole?
Does the good of the individual (i.e. you and yours) always trump the good of society?