57,000 Patients a Year Die Without Being Told Life-Saving Treatments Were Stopped

[wgbgator]

BTW, until Obamacare, there was a lifetime payout cap of $8 million on most health policies.

[mastoidbone]

I 100% agree that patients and family should NOT have the power to demand and get any care they want. If in minds of health care workers it is futile to continue care---that is it.

Now, i supposed you should inform family of that decision---and if they want to pay to go to a private hospital---i guess that is OK as well. But it is NOT ACCEPTABLE for family and patients with no medical knowledge to feel like health care delivery is a buffet they can choose from.

Objective criteria should be established and followed to reduce all the futile care that goes on.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I'd suggest you check out any insurance policy you own. You will find that there are many duties on your part you must comply with, as well as limits as to what will be paid, and when it will be paid or for how long.

Here's the major problem with your point. Those contracts are negotiated between the customer (patient) and the insurance company. The customer is free to see if they can find/afford a better policy if they want to. They are FREE to shop around. Not the case with a single-payor, government-run system.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by mocgator

So what you're saying... is that in addition to the productive having to pay for the substandard medical care of the non-productive and the "takers"... we then have to pay for our own medical care separately?

Exactly the same model as with private versus government school. Money is confiscated from me to pay for non-performing government schools and I have to pay dearly for private school as well.

What a deal!

I don't want to speak for MOI, but I think it would be something along the lines of the Medicare Supplimental Insurance. The single-payor, Government HC is the base, and one can purchase levels of coverage above that from private companies. I personally don't think it's such a bad idea.

Yes, there would be a tax increase for everyone. But companies would be completely alleviated (unless they choose to offer supplimential insurance as a carrot for employees) from having to provide healthcare. Not just of the costs to purchase it, but the costs embedded in the paperwork, yearly negotiations, etc. Also, wouldn't Worker's Comp insurance go away under a single-payor system?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

See my earlier post where I state something nearly identical. I was responding to moc's post immediately prior to mine.

Sorry, my mistake then.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by mocgator

So what you're saying... is that in addition to the productive having to pay for the substandard medical care of the non-productive and the "takers"... we then have to pay for our own medical care separately?

Exactly the same model as with private versus government school. Money is confiscated from me to pay for non-performing government schools and I have to pay dearly for private school as well.

What a deal!

I'm not prepared to debate the ideology of free market Utopianism. Suffice it to say that all of man's institutions contain some flaw or other, which augurs the need to be pragmatic.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

I don't want to speak for MOI, but I think it would be something along the lines of the Medicare Supplimental Insurance. The single-payor, Government HC is the base, and one can purchase levels of coverage above that from private companies. I personally don't think it's such a bad idea.

Yes, there would be a tax increase for everyone. But companies would be completely alleviated (unless they choose to offer supplimential insurance as a carrot for employees) from having to provide healthcare. Not just of the costs to purchase it, but the costs embedded in the paperwork, yearly negotiations, etc. Also, wouldn't Worker's Comp insurance go away under a single-payor system?

Feel free to speak for me here, you're doing a fine job.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Feel free to speak for me here, you're doing a fine job.

Any thoughts on worker's comp? Do you think there would still be a need to require all companies to carry it if everyone is already covered by a larger plan?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Any thoughts on worker's comp? Do you think there would still be a need to require all companies to carry it if everyone is already covered by a larger plan?

If worker's comp was part of the plan, then sure. But I don't know that it would be, as it also has an income replacement aspect. By no means am I saying that the government ought to do everything, but if it has to be involved it should be done as efficiently as possible and with firm cost controls.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Here's the major problem with your point. Those contracts are negotiated between the customer (patient) and the insurance company. The customer is free to see if they can find/afford a better policy if they want to. They are FREE to shop around. Not the case with a single-payor, government-run system.

They aren't negotiated. Insurance policies are contracts of adhesion. Literally, take it or leave it. The consumer has no negotiating power, but they get the favorable interpretation of the contract in court in a dispute.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm not prepared to debate the ideology of free market Utopianism. Suffice it to say that all of man's institutions contain some flaw or other, which augurs the need to be pragmatic.

The free market defeats fascist government control every single time.. You can't be "pragmatic" with tyranny... which is what we have in the USA today.