• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catastrophic medical insurance.

I

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

"Just let it get bad enough and then "someone else" will pay all the bills" has a history of undermining moral hazard, and this driving up costs in the end.

That our system costs way way too much for what we get is already by far the #1 problem with it.
 
Only covering illness when it's catastrophic leads to people putting off preventative care and early treatment. Also, many people won't be able to afford to get to the catastrophic amount. The result will be primary care delivered at emergency rooms, as is often the case currently.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

What is catastrophic is the level for knowledge you bring to the table and the size story you make up.
 
OP.

where you state "federal government" , replace it with "taxpayers". You do realize as it is today the Federal Govt. spends more than it brings in in revenue?

So how do you plan for the federal govt to pay for your plan?
 
I'm Supposn said:
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

We need less government involvement in health care...not more.

I'm okay with government providing catastrophic coverage for people who are unable to provide for themselves...but not for every tom, dick and mary.

People need to take responsibility, make the hard choices if necessary and take care of themselves.
 
Mycroft said:
We need less government involvement in health care...not more.

I'm okay with government providing catastrophic coverage for people who are unable to provide for themselves...but not for every tom, dick and mary.

People need to take responsibility, make the hard choices if necessary and take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Just remember "government" = taxpayers.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

While I'm not opposed to a government catastrophic insurance plan in some form, I'm not sure you understand what catastrophic means. Let's say that a particular procedure is valued by Medicare as being worth $200 and the provider charges $500. That $300 difference isn't "catastrophic". Catastrophic is like a total of tens of thousands of dollars.
 
Moderate Right said:
While I'm not opposed to a government catastrophic insurance plan in some form, I'm not sure you understand what catastrophic means. Let's say that a particular procedure is valued by Medicare as being worth $200 and the provider charges $500. That $300 difference isn't "catastrophic". Catastrophic is like a total of tens of thousands of dollars.
Click to expand...

Moderate Right, yes, we seem to agree.
For example, if the annually updated legally determined catastrophic amount were $10,000:
Medical expenditures on behalf of an individual patient that exceeds $10,000 within a single 365 consecutive days, and 15%, ($1,500) of innumerable following consecutive years, would be entirely paid by the federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].
Click to expand...

The irony there is that one could make the argument that the commercial insurer option in your list (Medicare Advantage) is superior when it comes to catastrophic expenditures precisely because Medicare Advantage plans have out-of-pocket caps that protect enrollees from catastrophic expenses whereas traditional ("government-provided") Medicare does not.
 
Greenbeard said:
The irony there is that one could make the argument that the commercial insurer option in your list (Medicare Advantage) is superior when it comes to catastrophic expenditures precisely because Medicare Advantage plans have out-of-pocket caps that protect enrollees from catastrophic expenses whereas traditional ("government-provided") Medicare does not.
Click to expand...

Greenbeard, Medicare advantage IS federally subsidized basic Medicare augmented with non-government insurance.
Medicare works well, but I object to federal subsidizing nongovernment augmented insurance at greater than federal net basic Medicare costs per capita.
I perceive nothing to be gained by eliminating nongovernment augmented Medicare.

Currently individual’s catastrophic medical expenses not paid by entities legally obligated to do so, or by charitable contributions, are to a substantial extent eventually of direct or indirect expenses to USA governments (and taxpayers).
Lacking federal catastrophic insurance at no cost to any insurance plans, all (commercial, non-profit, or governments’) insurance plans are less affordable and thus increases the numbers of people that are not insured.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Helix said:
Only covering illness when it's catastrophic leads to people putting off preventative care and early treatment. Also, many people won't be able to afford to get to the catastrophic amount. The result will be primary care delivered at emergency rooms, as is often the case currently.
Click to expand...

Our car insurance doesn't include oil changes, yet most car owners get their oil changed.

Most preventive care can't be given by a doctor. It's things like eating healthy and getting exercise that are preventive. Things like high blood pressure medications are actually sick care, and are typically very inexpensive.

Healthcare screenings, like for cancer or whatnot are certainly advisable, but the aggregate cost of screening is more expensive that any aggregate medical savings by catching illnesses slightly before they would have been discovered anyway.

And there is no reason that a high deductible major medical policy couldn't cover one free health checkup a year, that costs maybe $350 including bloodwork.
 
Mycroft said:
We need less government involvement in health care...not more.

I'm okay with government providing catastrophic coverage for people who are unable to provide for themselves...but not for every tom, dick and mary.

People need to take responsibility, make the hard choices if necessary and take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

What is beneficial to one person is beneficial for everyone. One of the elements of "fair" is treating everyone the same. So if something like catastrophic health insurance is so important that the government should provided it to some, it should be provided to everyone.

And means testing government benefits tends to lock people into poverty, while benefits that aren't means tested lock no one into poverty.
 
imagep said:
What is beneficial to one person is beneficial for everyone. One of the elements of "fair" is treating everyone the same. So if something like catastrophic health insurance is so important that the government should provided it to some, it should be provided to everyone.

And means testing government benefits tends to lock people into poverty, while benefits that aren't means tested lock no one into poverty.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Just because the bulk of people don't need government-provided benefits and some people do doesn't mean the government should provide those benefits to EVERYONE.
 
Helix said:
Only covering illness when it's catastrophic leads to people putting off preventative care and early treatment. Also, many people won't be able to afford to get to the catastrophic amount. The result will be primary care delivered at emergency rooms, as is often the case currently.
Click to expand...

Helix, we agree primary care delivered at emergency rooms is currently common and certainly the norm for those that cannot afford medical insurance or their insurance’s co-payments.

Currently individual’s catastrophic medical expenses not paid by entities legally obligated to do so, or by charitable contributions, are to a substantial extent eventually of direct or indirect expenses to USA governments (and taxpayers).

Thus, federal catastrophic insurance entitlement at no direct costs to any other entities would not be of net significant expenditures beyond the total reduction of costs to all USA medical plans such as insurance and HSA’s; but it that would reduce costs and prices of all such plans;
consequentially reducing the proportion of USA’s population not medically insured adequately and to some extent contribute to our governments’ budget deficits and/or our taxpayers’ costs.

Respectfully Supposn
 
imagep said:
Our car insurance doesn't include oil changes, yet most car owners get their oil changed.

Most preventive care can't be given by a doctor. It's things like eating healthy and getting exercise that are preventive. Things like high blood pressure medications are actually sick care, and are typically very inexpensive.

Healthcare screenings, like for cancer or whatnot are certainly advisable, but the aggregate cost of screening is more expensive that any aggregate medical savings by catching illnesses slightly before they would have been discovered anyway.

And there is no reason that a high deductible major medical policy couldn't cover one free health checkup a year, that costs maybe $350 including bloodwork.
Click to expand...

car maintenance is not analogous to a broken arm, pneumonia, or a heart attack.
 
Mycroft said:
I disagree.

Just because the bulk of people don't need government-provided benefits and some people do doesn't mean the government should provide those benefits to EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

MyCroft, federal catastrophic medical cost insurance entitlement rather than a “means” test would not be significantly more net costly to USA’s governments and taxpayers while being of greater net benefit to USA’s economy and population. If it's of any net cost to our governments, that cost would not be perceivably reflected within governments' budgets or individuals' tax burdens.
Refer to today’s 4:16 PM post.

Respectfully Supposn
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
MyCroft, federal catastrophic medical cost insurance entitlement rather than a “means” test would not be significantly more net costly to USA’s governments and taxpayers while being of greater net benefit to USA’s economy and population. If it's of any net cost to our governments, that cost would not be perceivably reflected within governments' budgets or individuals' tax burdens.
Refer to today’s 4:16 PM post.

Respectfully Supposn
Click to expand...

Okay...it's a free lunch, I suppose. :roll:


btw, when referring to a particular post, don't use time stamps. They are not the same for all of us. Use the post #.
 
Mycroft said:
I disagree.

Just because the bulk of people don't need government-provided benefits and some people do doesn't mean the government should provide those benefits to EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

Why not? We pay one way or another. I just want the best deal, don't care who I pay.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Helix, we agree primary care delivered at emergency rooms is currently common and certainly the norm for those that cannot afford medical insurance or their insurance’s co-payments.

Currently individual’s catastrophic medical expenses not paid by entities legally obligated to do so, or by charitable contributions, are to a substantial extent eventually of direct or indirect expenses to USA governments (and taxpayers).

Thus, federal catastrophic insurance entitlement at no direct costs to any other entities would not be of net significant expenditures beyond the total reduction of costs to all USA medical plans such as insurance and HSA’s; but it that would reduce costs and prices of all such plans;
consequentially reducing the proportion of USA’s population not medically insured adequately and to some extent contribute to our governments’ budget deficits and/or our taxpayers’ costs.

Respectfully Supposn
Click to expand...

i'd prefer basic universal coverage for all citizens covered by taxes and unrelated to specific employment, as is the norm in the rest of the first world.
 
Papa bull said:
... I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK. In fact, the founding fathers had a big problem with that, too.
Click to expand...

Papa Bull, I’m a populist.
Populism does not mean consulting public opinion polls, then accepting and fully supporting what the polls have determined to be the most popular opinion.
As a populist, I’m a proponent of policies that I believe to be to the best interests of my nation’s aggregate population and hopefully in our near and our long-term future. It’s of course conceivable, (but certainly not in MY case), that an individual populist’s opinion may be faulty.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer would be THE superior method for delivering universal basic medical insurance to USA’s population. Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers.
To the extent that commercial or non-profit insurers or uninsured patients are bankrupt or otherwise do not pay individuals’ medical expenditures, (e.g. hospitals and doctors are not paid), those costs to a significant extent become more public expenses and both indirectly and directly often become federal expenses.
Catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to their payers. They are of extremely drastic expenditures to direct individual payers and of increased prices to purchasers of medical insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

To the extent providers of individuals’ catastrophic medical goods and services are paid, they’re extremely catastrophic to direct individual payers but usually they contributed to the increased costs and prices of insured individuals’ insurance. Due to those less affordable insurance prices, more people are uninsured (and thus increase publics’ medical costs).

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance. When a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than 365 days and each following year until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount.
Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not otherwise previously insured.
The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of government price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. Instead of medicare for all make it medicare part A for all. People don't abuse part A because it means hospitalization, surgeries, accidents and so forth. The problem is the rest of it which is abused. Find a way to pay for it and I'll support that. Or, even better, allow insurance companies to offer it in lieu of obamacare and the problem is solved. The insurance companies won't have any problem competing with obamacare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom