This whole healthcare debate comes down to one thing...

[AzCatFan]

Free market is great, but I doubt anyone would ever in a sitaution to spend several hundred thousand dollars in order to save their life at a grocery store. The comparison to Publix and Winn Dixie doesn't fly, because never are you going to spend the kind of money a major operation would cost, nor will you ever need to visit one to save your life.

And while I don't trust the government, I don't trust for-profit insurance companies either. For-profit companies will always eventually have to make decisions between profit and someone's welfare. The commodity insurance companies trade is human health, and I find it unacceptable that anyone in this country should be denied treatment because of cost alone (not withstanding any other factors). Yet again, if your business is insurance, that's a decision you will end up making, lose money to save lives, or profit and deny treatment.

The answer, in my opinion, isn't a complete overhaul. First, we must foster more competition and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. Competition will help drive lower costs. Second, the government should cover catastophic insurance, or perhaps anything that costs over a set amount. For most of us, on even a year-to-year basis, we'll never have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on hospital bills. But for those that need it, that's where the government should step in and release the for profit insurance companies from choosing profit over treatment.

The single payer option is not the answer, but neither is staying the course. We can't continue to keep paying higher and higher prices with no end in sight.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatornana

by the same token, I don't trust big insurance corporations to decide what's best for me and my loved ones either....so what's the solution?

More competition to keep the insurance companies more honest. i.e. open up competition across state lines.

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by ncbullgator

Nana, I am 50 years old and have been through a variety of medical emergencies including a time when my daughter was born prematurely at 2lbs, 2 oz. Never once did an insurance company deny coverage.

I am sure this happens, but to imply this is widespread is not true. Just like the other hundred lies Obama is spreading about health care reform.

MOC forgets the second half of what King Obama's health care reform is about. Who is going to pay for all of those people who want what private health care provides?

The people who work. And that is simply BS.

I'm a tad over 50 and like you, have had medical emergencies and a life threatening illness strike my kids...never having any problem with coverage or denial of treatment.

I do believe treatment denial or dropping of coverage is happening more frequently. Our insurance coverage isn't what it used to be. Medical costs and "for profit" insurance is out of control.

We have a system now where working people pay for those that don't.....unfortunately, I don't see that changing. That isn't a Dem thing...both parties foster this. If it were up to me, every single person would pay something toward their medical coverage.....even just a dollar a month for the poorest. We have way too many who have learned to be helpless.

[TR1228]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Free market is great, but I doubt anyone would ever in a sitaution to spend several hundred thousand dollars in order to save their life at a grocery store. The comparison to Publix and Winn Dixie doesn't fly, because never are you going to spend the kind of money a major operation would cost, nor will you ever need to visit one to save your life.

And while I don't trust the government, I don't trust for-profit insurance companies either. For-profit companies will always eventually have to make decisions between profit and someone's welfare. The commodity insurance companies trade is human health, and I find it unacceptable that anyone in this country should be denied treatment because of cost alone (not withstanding any other factors). Yet again, if your business is insurance, that's a decision you will end up making, lose money to save lives, or profit and deny treatment.

The answer, in my opinion, isn't a complete overhaul. First, we must foster more competition and allow insurance companies to cross state lines. Competition will help drive lower costs. Second, the government should cover catastophic insurance, or perhaps anything that costs over a set amount. For most of us, on even a year-to-year basis, we'll never have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on hospital bills. But for those that need it, that's where the government should step in and release the for profit insurance companies from choosing profit over treatment.

The single payer option is not the answer, but neither is staying the course. We can't continue to keep paying higher and higher prices with no end in sight.

A few comments in here I have an issue with. In a free market, the provider would of course like to offer very cheap goods at very high prices, but they can't because a competitor would offer higher quality good at lower prices to undercut them. There is no fundamental difference economically between food and health care, either. The idea that if something is important to you, it should be taken away from the free market is the very cause of our problems in health care. Moving farther from the free market is what is causing costs to rise.

Regarding catastrophic insurance, such events are the very reason private insurance came into existence; this wasn't something invented by governments. The concept of paying a smaller amount to insure against a low likelihood, high cost risk out of your control is the very reason for insurance, and this would work just fine without interference. The problem is that the government has made it *illegal* to purchase insurance for just catastrophic risks like heart attacks and cancer, etc.

States and the federal government both have "minimum insurance" standards (which were created at the encouragement of providers of certain services) that make it illegal to buy insurance without such amenities as simple check-ups, psychiatric treatment, everyday doctor's visits and the like. The new bill is going to create an Orwellian-named "Health Choices" supervisor who will decree what services it is "necessary" for insurance to cover and what constitutes a "qualified plan". Buying cheaper insurance because you don't need what the government says you need will be illegal.

Lastly, in a free market, providers can't "choose profit over treatment". First, they must do what the contract they and the customer voluntarily agreed to says they must do. The inviolability of contracts is fundamental to capitalism. Second, if a provider tries to offer less coverage to customers for the same price, its competitors will take all the customers. Businesses know this, and thus don't do so.

The fundamental truism of the free market is that every provider would of course like to offer very little services for a very high price, but they can't due to the existence of free entry into the market. McDonald's would love to charge $5 for a hamburger, but if they did everyone would go somewhere else. Similarly, if we had a free market, Aetna would love to offer very little coverage for $100,000 premiums, but if it did all its customers would choose another provider. There's absolutely no need for the government to attempt to punish profits; in fact, that's the source of the problems.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by TR1228

A few comments in here I have an issue with. In a free market, the provider would of course like to offer very cheap goods at very high prices, but they can't because a competitor would offer higher quality good at lower prices to undercut them. There is no fundamental difference economically between food and health care, either. The idea that if something is important to you, it should be taken away from the free market is the very cause of our problems in health care. Moving farther from the free market is what is causing costs to rise.

Regarding catastrophic insurance, such events are the very reason private insurance came into existence; this wasn't something invented by governments. The concept of paying a smaller amount to insure against a low likelihood, high cost risk out of your control is the very reason for insurance, and this would work just fine without interference. The problem is that the government has made it *illegal* to purchase insurance for just catastrophic risks like heart attacks and cancer, etc.

States and the federal government both have "minimum insurance" standards (which were created at the encouragement of providers of certain services) that make it illegal to buy insurance without such amenities as simple check-ups, psychiatric treatment, everyday doctor's visits and the like. The new bill is going to create an Orwellian-named "Health Choices" supervisor who will decree what services it is "necessary" for insurance to cover and what constitutes a "qualified plan". Buying cheaper insurance because you don't need what the government says you need will be illegal.

Lastly, in a free market, providers can't "choose profit over treatment". First, they must do what the contract they and the customer voluntarily agreed to says they must do. The inviolability of contracts is fundamental to capitalism. Second, if a provider tries to offer less coverage to customers for the same price, its competitors will take all the customers. Businesses know this, and thus don't do so.

The fundamental truism of the free market is that every provider would of course like to offer very little services for a very high price, but they can't due to the existence of free entry into the market. McDonald's would love to charge $5 for a hamburger, but if they did everyone would go somewhere else. Similarly, if we had a free market, Aetna would love to offer very little coverage for $100,000 premiums, but if it did all its customers would choose another provider. There's absolutely no need for the government to attempt to punish profits; in fact, that's the source of the problems.

Except for the part where uncertainty means that markets don't function properly with insurance, making the rest of your post meaningless.

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Except for the part where uncertainty means that markets don't function properly with insurance, making the rest of your post meaningless.

I don't follow your point here. Can you elaborate?

[TR1228]

Hah, are you saying that the free market can't handle things that involve risk, that the free market can't handle insurance? Now THAT is rich.

The free market most certainly can handle insurance: look at car insurance. Providers attempt to gauge who has the most risk, and those with perceived higher risk are charged higher premiums. If an insurance carrier does a good job judging risk, it profits and other copy its methods, and if it does a poor job it goes out of business. Imagine if someone claimed that the government should make it illegal for auto insurers to charge higher premiums to those with "pre-existing conditions" (aka a higher propensity to need future repairs). Everyone would say that's ridiculous, and they'd be right, because if that law were enacted, prices would go up for all good drivers and the incentive to drive carefully would be weakened, thus causing higher bills for everyone.

The best way to show that what you just said is nonsense, however, is to look at home loans and housing insurance. In a free market, the loan provider (a bank) would charge higher premiums (interest rates) to those who seemed less likely to be able to pay. People wouldn't be able to get mortgages on houses they could in no way afford. Yet the government jumped in and proceed to completely ignore risk, and we're left in the situation we're in now with many people in houses they could never afford, with the American people footing the bill for the government bailouts of the financial institutions it caused to make these awful decisions.

The free market most certainly can function properly with insurance. The government is the one that cannot because it has no concern for profit and loss. To make the absurd statements above is simply asinine.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by TR1228

Hah, are you saying that the free market can't handle things that involve risk, that the free market can't handle insurance? Now THAT is rich.

The free market most certainly can handle insurance: look at car insurance. Providers attempt to gauge who has the most risk, and those with perceived higher risk are charged higher premiums. If an insurance carrier does a good job judging risk, it profits and other copy its methods, and if it does a poor job it goes out of business. Imagine if someone claimed that the government should make it illegal for auto insurers to charge higher premiums to those with "pre-existing conditions" (aka a higher propensity to need future repairs). Everyone would say that's ridiculous, and they'd be right, because if that law were enacted, prices would go up for all good drivers and the incentive to drive carefully would be weakened, thus causing higher bills for everyone.

The best way to show that what you just said is nonsense, however, is to look at home loans and housing insurance. In a free market, the loan provider (a bank) would charge higher premiums (interest rates) to those who seemed less likely to be able to pay. People wouldn't be able to get mortgages on houses they could in no way afford. Yet the government jumped in and proceed to completely ignore risk, and we're left in the situation we're in now with many people in houses they could never afford, with the American people footing the bill for the government bailouts of the financial institutions it caused to make these awful decisions.

The free market most certainly can function properly with insurance. The government is the one that cannot because it has no concern for profit and loss. To make the absurd statements above is simply asinine.

Insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there, and for good reason. Auto insurance is hardly illustrative of the free market at work. Rate increases and policy changes must be approved by the state, companies must have a set amount of proven assets to operate, transactions must be carried out by licensed professionals, there are tons of rules and regulations on how and when a policy holder can be dropped, and in many states certain coverages are mandated, so there is not complete consumer choice either. If anything, auto insurance proves that the market and government oversight can coexist and be profitable.

[swampcabbage]

Between Government and Big Insurance Company's looking for every possible loop hole to deny promised health care because they have to have enough money to pay their CEO three quarters of a billion dollars in bonuses; I'll take Uncle Sam every day of the week.

[dlowe2k2]

Originally Posted by swampcabbage

I'll take Uncle Sam every day of the week.

We already know that.

[philnotfil]

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3):488-500.
http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/chr...er/akerlof.pdf
Some highlights from the section dealing with insurance:

It is a well-known fact that people over 65 have great difficulty
in buying medical insurance. The natural question arises: why
doesn't the price rise to match the risk?
Our answer is that as the price level rises the people who insure
themselves will be those who are increasingly certain that they
will need the insurance; for error in medical check-ups, doctors'
sympathy with older patients, and so on make it much easier for
the applicant to assess the risks involved than the insurance company.
The result is that the average medical condition of insurance
applicants deteriorates as the price level rises- with the result
that no insurance sales may take place at any price.l This is strictly
analogous to our automobiles case, where the average quality of
used cars supplied fell with a corresponding fall in the price level.

Group insurance, which is the most common form of medical
insurance in the United States, picks out the healthy, for generally
adequate health is a precondition for employment. At the same
time this means that medical insurance is least available to those
who need it most, for the insurance companies do their own "adverse
selection."
This adds one major argument in favor of me d i ~ a r e .O~n a
cost benefit basis medicare may pay off: for it is quite possible that
every individual in the market would be willing to pay the expected
cost of his medicare and buy insurance, yet no insurance
company can afford to sell him a policy -for at any price it will
attract too many "lemons." The welfare economics of medicare, in
this view, is exactly analogous to the usual classroom argument
for public expenditure on roads.

The reason that car insurance works is that everyone is required to participate, which would make it not a free market.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3):488-500.
http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/members/chr...er/akerlof.pdf
Some highlights from the section dealing with insurance:



The reason that car insurance works is that everyone is required to participate, which would make it not a free market.

In addition, the government even created an involuntary market (the Florida Joint Underwriting Association) to provide coverage for those othwerwise uninsurable on the voluntary market. I think all companies are required to participate. So again, not Free Market.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by gator421

Government insurance aside. You obviously haven't had any medical problems. The insurance companies are running the healthcare industry and free or not they are dictating treatment.

Please provide links or documentatin that the insurance companies are running the healthcare industry.

I do agree that the insurance companies have a lot of input/pull on the healthcare industry but I do know that they are not the sole driver at the wheel.
Many companies are not going sign up with an insurace company that will provide their employees crappy coverage. For one thing they do not want to piss of their employees to the point where they will leave or not hire on.
Many companies go out and shop for the best deal available. Those deals could get better if the gov't would let insurance companies cross the state lines (you know more competition).
When I say the best deal I am not saying the lowest price. I am saying a good price with good coverage.

The hospitals and are not that week against the insurance companies. Three years ago Pedmont Hospital here in Atlanta got into a big whizzing contest with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Basically Pedmont drop BCBS. This move ticked off a bunch of BCBS customers in the Atlanta area. A multi month battle ensued with a deal being struck that allowed BCBS back into Pedmont.

There are several players in this battle.
The Insurance Companies.
The Health Care providers.
The employers pay a part of the premium who offer med benefits to their employees.
The employees or customers who pay the premium.
The Gov't.

Leaving a overhaul to just the Gov't would only magnify the mess we have now.

Every party needs to be in on the fix.

[swampcabbage]

Originally Posted by dlowe2k2

We already know that.

I am probably one of the few people on the board who is covered under medicare, so I would suggest I have more personal experience than the great majority who are having mental meltdowns at the prospect of gumit healthcare.

[dlowe2k2]

Originally Posted by swampcabbage

I am probably one of the few people on the board who is covered under medicare, so I would suggest I have more personal experience than the great majority who are having mental meltdowns at the prospect of gumit healthcare.

So you believe that adding millions to government health care system won't have any negative effect on quality of care as a whole?

[AzCatFan]

Again, there are fundamental differences between all other markets and health insurance. The commodity is a person's health, and there are no alternitives to living. Whereas in auto insurance, if a company deems a person uninsurable, there are those willing to take the higher risk for higher premiums. And if a person is unwilling or unable to pay for the higher insurance, they have other options, such as riding a bicycle, public transportation, or even telecommuting. But what happens to the person who's medical insurance company deems uninsurable, and has to pay rates he simply cannot afford? There is no comprable "public transportation" option when dealing with one's health.

[ladyg8or]

Mr Cabbage

I hope you are kn good health because they are going to cut 500 billion out of medicare

[nflgator]

I remember when there was no insurance. How did people cope with this problem?
People didn't spend money for drugs. My dad was 85 when he died and he had seen about 6 doctors in his life. Also, when he died he had all his original teeth. His code for living..
1.. Eat 3 square meals a day.
2.. Work all day.
3.. Once a month take a dose of Castor oil.
4.. Once every 3 months take a dose of Black Draught.
He said .. do this and it will be hard to kill you.
He brushed his teeth with snuff with an oak teig from an Oak tree.

[gatorville]

The government is going to be exactly the same as the insurance companies, but the working class will pay for it all. I guess that we pay for everyone anyway so what does it matter.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by gator421

Government insurance aside. You obviously haven't had any medical problems. The insurance companies are running the healthcare industry and free or not they are dictating treatment.

You obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding my medical history, and my doctor dictated treatment. My insurance company paid what they were supposed to and I paid my deductible and anything not covered.

That's how it works.