"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
With government they are stuck within a 'budget' for everyones health care, and the help each individual gets is reduced... where private health care you get better treatment if you can pay for it.
So, a combination system, would have to be ideal... perhaps all generic health care is covered, so they would treat you rather than let you die... but having the private care option for specialists and the like.
I agree that there needs to be more regulation in the healthcare system, not less, but only in some areas. But the focus needs to be in the relationship between the provider and insurer, because this is a two way street. Yes, insurance providers do have people looking at treatments and rejecting payment of those treatments to the provider, based on what they believe to be treatments that are unecessary. While its true that these people do not see the patient, the treatment is reviewed by a liscenced medical professional. The insurers pay good money to these people. In the case of an RN, he/she could make well more than they could working at a hospital. However, providers are more willing to do "more tests" for insured patients, than they will for uninsured patients. Because the insurance companies have the deep pockets. This back and forth fight between health insurer, and provider over what is necessary, is a HUGE part of the problem IMO. This is an area that needs regulation. However, it is my opinion that the regulation needs to come from the states and not the federal government. Insurance laws are written by state legislatures and are overseen and enforced by a commisioner of insurance in each state. Devising a national regulatory system would infringe on the ability for states to retain control over the health care providers and insurers under their rule.
The payment situation is absurd, and its because of the back and forth struggle between insurer and provider. I received a bill for $350 almost a year after my son was born, from my wifes anethesia. I called to find out why I was getting a bill for $350 dollars, since we hadn't been to the hospital for nearly a year. Supposedly there was a dispute between the two that had to be settled before they could bill us. Now thats not a huge bill in this case, but its an inconvience for sure.
If we were to remove the stipulation that pre-existing conditions have to be covered, then insurers will have to be allowed to charge additional premium because of pre-existing conditions. Insurance by definition is the transfer of risk. The greater the risk they assume, the greater the premium they charge. Thats the insurance market in a nutshell. The reason they do not cover pre-existing conditions, is because they are trying to keep the premiums lower. Anybody who seeks to reform this, had better be careful because if they try to be noble and force insurers to cover pre-existing, and deny them the ability to charge for it, will seriously screw everything up and insurance companies would either collapse(more unemployment for you to deal with Mr. President) or they would find a way to increase premium in an "unrelated" way, to cover costs.
Also I remember reading on Obama's website during the campaign season, that he would essentially remove the cap on insurance policies. I do not know if he still seeks that, but that would be a disaster of epic proportions. As I said before, insurance is a transfer of risk. If we tell insurance companies they must take on an infinite amount of risk, what do you think that will do to premiums? ALL insurance policies, regardless of what kind of insurance it is, has a policy limit. The higher the limit, the higher the premium. Insurance companies have deep pockets, but not that deep.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
If that's like UHC in europe then it's probably a bad idea :P (not because european health care sucks, I'm saying just cause everywhere is a pretty sh&%^y system, and so it would take something new and outside the box to fix it)
Heartless is places like Kanuckistan where you have no choice.
Where waiting lists substitute as "care".
Medical is a business. Not a right.
You pay and you get.
Those that don't have no right to complain about the service others are paying for them to receive.
They should be thanked profusely, not pissed on.
The best systems are those free of government intervention.
Where competition drives down cost and improves services.
I know it's tough for a Euro to understand.
You folks wait 30 minutes for service in a half empty restaurant.
Last edited by zimmer; 03-06-09 at 08:30 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
"There is a lot of talk coming from CitiGroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect, So let me say this to anyone listening at Citi —I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces." -- Elizabeth Warren
Just like you do NOT have a right to a home, you have the privilege of buying a home.
You do not have the RIGHT to a car, you have the privilege to one.
People seem to think that because it's a an important part of life, to see a doctor, to live in a house and to drive a car, that it should be given to you.
The belief that one should work hard and manage their money and their time towards ensuring that they have these vital things has given way to the poisonous belief that one is entitled to certain things, and that the government should provide it.
⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
If you have standard health insurance and start coverage with another company within 63 days, there are no pre-existing condition limitations. The new company is required to treat your illness as a covered illness. If you wait until 64 days, you're screwed.Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy
That's why you have to be careful when you change employment. If your new employer has a waiting period that could extend beyond 63 days, you should always get Cobra coverage from your old emplyer so that no pre-existing limitations will apply.
Last edited by Gill; 03-06-09 at 10:10 AM.