Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

  1. #1
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    Medical insurances' annual fees per patient may make some financial sense, but annual deductibles are nonsense. We do not want to discourage people from seeking preventative and screening medical services that are reasonably applicable to their current medical rather than their financial conditions.

    Deferring such reasonable preventative and screening procedures can lead to some individuals' future death, and/or catastrophic disabilities and their treatments' costs. Reluctance to pay for such procedures is economically and financially and socially contra-productive to our nation and our population.
    Regardless of whatever shall be our nation's future healthcare policies, it would be prudent for the federal government to require all approved Affordable Care Act, (ACA) policies should prohibit any annual deductibles before their coverages “kick-in”.

    I suppose that some government and non-government insurance plans have identified some reasonable preventative and screening conditions and procedures for which there's no patients' out-of-pocket costs.
    We should consider federal government formally compiling and updating an expanded book of all items for which all ACA approved policies would be prohibited from charging out-of-pocket costs.

    Some portion of costs for all (government or non-government) ACA approved medical insurers costs due to items within the federal book of no out-of-pocket reasonable preventative and screening conditions and procedures items' costs should be federally subsidized.
    Similarly, the government should provide catastrophic medical cost insurance for both insured or uninsured individual legal residents' entitlements;(Hospitals need such reimbursed even for non-insured patients).

    These federal direct and indirect medical insurance subsidies should be charged to a general rather than to any more specific medical item in the federal Budget; (not directly charged as a Medicare, or Medicaid, or veterans or CHIPs cost items).
    These government subsidies would reduce these costs attributed to all ACA approved medical insurance plans and can be considered by state regulators of medical insurance prices.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Last edited by I'm Supposn; 07-15-19 at 12:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    Quote Originally Posted by I'mSupposn View Post
    I originally posted this topic last year within adifferent group. The link from which I quote is from a NY Timesarticle dated July 3, 2018, and was linked the next day within an MSNweb site. The article's title is entitled “Obamacare Is ProvingHard to Kill”, by Reed Abelson. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by I'mSupposn View Post
    ...Originally Posted by Supposn
    Individuals’Catastrophic Medical costs:
    Federalinsurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals:
    Excerptedfrom Congressman Paul Ryan’s website. He forwarded a transcriptconcerning his positions of regarding USA’s healthcare policies;Racine [WI] Journal News, Mark Schaaf, July 7, 20217.
    Republicanshave proposed the federal and state governments subsidize the cost ofcare for people in the individual market with catastrophic illnesses,Ryan said. He believes that will make it easier to insure people inthose high-risk pools at a more affordable price”. ...
    ...InMinnesota, which created a reinsurance program to help pay forcustomers’ expensive medical conditions, carriers are actuallyseeking lower premiums. A midlevel policy in Minneapolis is priced at$302 a month. ...”.
    Respectfully, Supposn

  3. #3
    Infidel
    Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,188

    Re: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    No. Because any advance; restricting prices for prescription drugs; single payer systems that remove an abusive, bloated middle man (insurance); or a system that covers everyone, is immediately called socialism by the right wing.

    They're completely fine sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel, or billions in general all over the globe; they're completely fine consistently and massively increasing our military budget, which is used to occupy foreign countries against their will; they're completely fine cutting taxes on the rich and claiming increased "economic activity" will increase tax income (it won't, never has, because the rich don't buy anything, they simply reinvest); they're completely fine spending billions on "border security" coupled with billions more fighting a drug war that makes the entire immigration issue the tinder box it is; They then go on and claim the mantle of patriotism, after all this, and their mouthbreathing, flea infested horde of followers shouts USA USA USA while the GOP and establishment dems sell them and their healthcare right out the window with rhetoric.

    The GOP and far right are not for America first or they would be for protecting ALL us citizens from the ravages of our inhumane healthcare system. Instead, they're more concerned with cutting taxes for like 5% of the country and spending hundreds of billions on foreign, illegal wars.

    **** the right wing.
    #BDS

    "There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    52,294

    Re: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    No. The right will have to be forced into progress, as is usually the case.

  5. #5
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    Well the right is all about maintaining the status quo. There should be no government programs for anything that can be privatized where their doners can make some money.

    Now democrats truly believe that health care for everyone is the right thing to do. They believe that a single payer government run program is the best way to accomplish it.

    Two parties are far apart.

    Republican always support privatization and the profit motive. Personal responsibility. You get what you can afford.

    While democrats support more of a government controlled social safety net.

  6. #6
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Seen
    09-13-19 @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    24

    Re: Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm Supposn View Post
    Can Democrats and Republicans agree upon anything to reduce medical insurance costs?
    My, you are the thread starter. This question seems to be a good one and I hope I can contribute although I'm neither D nor R.

    You mention preventative vs catastrophic care and I do believe therein lies how we might dissect some options. I'd prefer to expand the "preventative" to include regular/routine and add more categories, including one of (s)elective (even if personally or societally, subjectively speaking, beneficial) as well as some others I have little insight on.

    Let me describe them as I'd classify them.

    • Acute: You didn't know it was gonna happen but it did, right then...to you. A car accident, a heart attack, a stroke, a fall (with say broken bones), an anaphylactic reaction to something unknown, an assault (beating, GSW), etc.
    • Preventative/Regular/Routine: Things that you KNOW need to be done (either on a regular basis as preventative or because you've been diagnosed and need routine care) to include....annual physicals (at all ages, not just "well child checkups"), allergy shots, diabetic check-ins, mammograms and prostrate exams, colonoscopies, vaccines/boosters. I would also think to include "dental" matters here too: regular cleanings and evaluations. [This area is one that even Medicare blatantly ignores.]
    • Catastrophic: A truly fatal diagnosis. Could be that devastating car accident with life-threatening injuries or a Stage 4 Cancer. You're gonna die from it. Question is: sooner or later.
    • (Potentially Medically) Corrective: Orthodontia (impacted teeth, bite correction), Gastric Bypass (for the clinically, morbidly obese), Rhinoplasty (for those with deviated septums and impaired breathing), Breast Reductions, etc.
    • (S)elective: Orthodontia, (Semi-or) Permanent Contraception Control (tubal ligation, vasectomies, IUD, etc.), Abortion, Skin tag removals, Tummy Tucks, Breast Enhancements, SRS, etc.
    • Lab Testing: ???
    • Drugs: ???
    • Addiction Treatment: ???
    • Mental Health Treatment: ???
    • Long(er) Term Medical and/or Mental Health (Dementia) Care: ???


    And, yes, I've lumped some very uncomfortable issues here and included some (s)elective procedures that perhaps belong in a different category. They are indeed arguing points.

    And I left several VERY large portions of our medical costs (testing, drugs, long-term care) in the realm of the unknown.

    That said (or loosely defined...I am soooo willing to discuss that too)...I genuinely believe both sides can agree on ACUTE care being provided. That service should be provided and is incumbent on who/whatever opens up "shop" as an emergency facility; they must provide the care. Let's argue over who's to pay for it later. And, I sincerely think, that is currently done. WE take care of a person in immediate distress.

    I'd venture to say, however, that acute, distressful care is a minute portion of our collective health care costs...and insurance (the premise of your thread) or cash pays the rest. I have no figure to back that up and perhaps another poster, much more savvy in the industry than me (Greenbeard, calling you!), might have some insight.

    Very quick before I retire for the evening....here are some general thoughts.

    I genuinely believe Left and Right can agree on Acute care, regardless how it's paid be it by some sort of insurance, charity, M4A, or single govt payer. Not only is it (I think) required by US Law, it's innate.

    I'd hope(!) -- both sides could agree there are many things to be done, even in the current environment, to address the ''Preventative/Regular/Routine'' category. The first and foremost I would propose would be to: advertise your price! If the free market (S/D) system is to work, you've got to inform the end consumer of total cost. Let those with ''insurance'' figure out their out-of-pocket cost. It's why our local supermarket with a doc-in-box clinic can do school physicals for $39 (although I think they ''attempt'' to bill your insurance but eat it if they can't). A state inspection of my vehicle costs X. If it passes, I incur no further cost. If it fails, they can give me an estimate of what they'll charge me to fix it...or I can go somewhere else for another opinion and/or estimate. We should be able to do the same with ourselves.

    So those are my two things I think all can agree on. But as always, the devil is in the details.

    I hope to have more time to address some of the other categories and provide some other overall suggestions (tort reform, insurance across state-lines/by "association", better personal "health" instruction in school, more realistic expectations on what "modern" medicine can actually accomplish within our collective health care budget).
    Last edited by SomeCents; 07-23-19 at 11:56 PM. Reason: grammar
    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. ~Ancient Proverb
    You can send a child to school, but you cannot make him think. ~s˘

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •