Health care Solution- get rid of all republicans.

[Jed M]

I don't think health insurance companies are saving anyone's lives.

Correct. Health Insurance companies only serve as modern day death panels. Its hospitals, doctors and pharma that save lives. Health insurance companies really serve no purpose in the "life saving" business. In fact, their purpose is for the exact opposite. They literally decide who gets "saved" and who doesn't.

 

[highfigh]

I don't think health insurance companies are saving anyone's lives.

Not directly, but they pay for the care received and if someone has no hope of being covered for some treatments, they won't try to get them. The insurance companies don't cover pre-existing conditions and of someone has no insurance but loses their coverage/reaches their lifetime maximum and needs treatment for a disease that returns, they're basically screwed.

Talk to a doctor and ask if insurance companies pay the amount on the bill. They don't- they negotiate a much lower price and if it's not possible for some doctors to maintain a certain lifestyle, they'll leave the profession. Don't kid yourself- they're not all in it to save lives or help people.

 

[Jed M]

Not directly, but they pay for the care received

Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

 

[highfigh]

"That's not the question. The question is "how do you get them to care""

That's an unteresting question, in light of how politicians campaign. They talk about "being there" for us and doing things that will benefit their district, state, county, nation, etc but the people who vote for them go for it hook, line and sinker. I'd like to see how many people vote based on the issues vs party affiliation/"He's one of us", etc.

"You want a real answer? Revolution. Replace congress with a much smaller body. Have congress hire and fire (think bord of directors) agency heads who make real policy / spending. Make terms 3 years and don't allow consecutive terms (also, make taking money from private interests while in office, and campaigning while in office, treason)."

I like this but the "no consecutive terms" part may be a problem. Or not. As it is now, it takes a certain amount of time to learn how the existing system works and if they want to get things done, it may take the better part of one term to gain enough support from other members of Congress to do anything meaningful. The "Or not" part applies to another question- "So we really want them to learn how it works the way it is?". I think the way it is now needs to end. The part you wrote parenthetically is something I have thought for a long time. If they're out campaigning for a different position, they can't possible give much effort to the one they were elected to, so they shouldn't be paid, at the very least. At most, they should be replaced. If this is done in the private sector, it wouldn't be tolerated by any employer I know. It would mean Obama wouldn't have finished his term in the Senate, either. He was barely there for two years when he began his campaign.

 

[highfigh]

Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

Insurance is a numbers game. The odds of a person with a certain lifestyle has more chance of coming down with certain illnesses and less of others. Someone working in a dangerous profession is more likely to be injured or killed than someone who sits at a desk. They have calculated these risks to a fine degree and based on this, they charge us for coverage. That's why they ask the questions they do on their applications. What they collect is basically a slush fund and they know that they'll never have to pay it all out at one time, so they take the excess and invest it- no point in letting it sit there and not make money for them, right? For this, our rates increased on several occasions because they made bad investments. How the F is that our fault and why should we pay for it? On top of that, they negotiate lower payments to hospitals and doctors, deny claims and build new offices/headquarters.

Non-profits spend anything left over at the end of the year and many times, the heads get this as bonuses. I fail to see how that helps anyone, other than the ones getting the bonuses.

 

[highfigh]

Correction. We pay for the care received. They just take our money, pocket a good chunk of it and then decides which one of us lucky ones gets our money back and which ones just die. That is simply all they provide. Its not their money they are paying with, its ours. They are simply an unnecessary middle man who profits by denying our claims with our money. A non-profit could do it just as well while having better care and covering a lot more people instead of paying out profits to death panels.

I mean the insurance companies use the premiums they collect to pay for the treatment we receive but not necessarily at full price.

 

[Nemo128]

People should be more concerned with getting good health care and wellness options rather than simply health insurance. Preventive medicine and care is far more effective and important.

highfigh, always meant to tell you, I find your sig HIGHLY amusing. I smirk cynically every time I read it.

 

[JerryLove]

I like this but the "no consecutive terms" part may be a problem. Or not. As it is now, it takes a certain amount of time to learn how the existing system works and if they want to get things done, it may take the better part of one term to gain enough support from other members of Congress to do anything meaningful. The "Or not" part applies to another question- "So we really want them to learn how it works the way it is?". I think the way it is now needs to end. The part you wrote parenthetically is something I have thought for a long time. If they're out campaigning for a different position, they can't possible give much effort to the one they were elected to, so they shouldn't be paid, at the very least. At most, they should be replaced. If this is done in the private sector, it wouldn't be tolerated by any employer I know. It would mean Obama wouldn't have finished his term in the Senate, either. He was barely there for two years when he began his campaign.

As it is now: Congress works something like 120 days a year, if they show up, and if they are not campaigning.

I suggest 3-year terms with an election every year for 1/3rd of congress. That means a politician who wins when he runs has 3 years in, 1 year running, and 3 years in again.

It also means that, each year, there's a 1/3rd change-over (even if these people come back).

I think it helps reduce "incumbent always gets elected", helps break up status quo, and eliminates campaigning in office (treason), while not resulting in "nothing but the inexperienced and out-of-touch"... at least not to a greater degree than now.

 

[NicolasKL]

Not directly, but they pay for the care received

They don't even do that. The people paying the premiums pay for the care received. All health insurance companies do is disburse the funds.

Talk to a doctor and ask if insurance companies pay the amount on the bill. They don't- they negotiate a much lower price

Mine doesn't. They pay the max they think it should cost and then the doctor bills ME for the difference.

 

[NicolasKL]

Non-profits spend anything left over at the end of the year and many times, the heads get this as bonuses. I fail to see how that helps anyone, other than the ones getting the bonuses.

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

 

[Nemo128]

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

NJ Manufacturers insurance does exactly that. They pay dividends to all policy holders at the end of the year. It's like a partial refund of your premium. They do this as a non-profit insurance company, and they're very successful in NJ. They offer without exception in my experience the lowest insurance premiums of any NJ auto insurance provider.

I guess being an insurance company that isn't only concerned with raping the consumer hand over fist isn't so bad!

 

[markw]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Why not compare the insurance you buy from Best Buy for $10.00 when you buy a walkman while you're at it?

After all, it's all insurance, isn't it?

 

[Nemo128]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Insurance profits from automobiles are higher than medical, and the cost to the consumer for the premiums (at least in NJ) is far higher, but I don't see claims adjusters driving $200k+ cars and owning multiple homes. I know quite a few people in both industries, and the ones in the medical industry are all far better off. The insurance companies are honestly the victims of rape by the pharmaceutical companies, the medical care providers, and the suppliers.

Just ask my fiance, who was doing an architecture project for GSK and saw that they pay upwards of $2500 to move a cabinet. Yes, I said to move a cabinet. Not a medical cabinet. Not a cabinet full of trade secrets. Not even personnel records. A brand new normal empty cabinet that one person can handle moved from one corner to another. And don't let me get started on the scientists who demand that the company spend half a million dollars to rearrange some furniture.

 

[JerryLove]

There is certainly enough blame to go around: but let's not judge an industry by the employees in it. The fact that the person answering the phone at the insurance company doesn't get paid well doesn't really speak to the industry.

But I agree. The pharm industry is a good culprit... going so far as to issue "coupons" to subvert the co-pay system designed to move you to a $50 generic over a $500 identical name-brand.

All that said: there are fundamental problems that cannot be solved without mandatory insurance. Put simply: the bulk of your expenses are at end-of-life. This means that insurance will become increasingly unaffordable as you age. If we spread the cost to the young in a system where an insurer can refuse old people: then the young will flock to insurers that do just that and we won't solve the problem. If we spread the cost with voulentary insurance: then they young will go uninsured.

But some of those young people will get very sick. If they are uninsured, they will be uninsurable, and so the system will fail. If they were insured, they will likely be dropped. Which one happens more depends on the details of how you setup your non-manditory system.

Only mandated coverage can allow costs to be spread over a community, and only spread costs can make insurance simultaneously available and affordable.

 

[highfigh]

So you don't have it done that way, you use it to lower premiums next year.

You'd think, but they don't want to give up their bonuses. Then, when they do their budget, they often add for inflation, etc anyway.

 

[highfigh]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Why not compare the insurance you buy from Best Buy for $10.00 when you buy a walkman while you're at it?

After all, it's all insurance, isn't it?

If it's their own extended warranty, they put in some seed money and use it as a slush fund, which adds to their profit at year end. If they're selling third party warranties, they make good profits on them.

 

[NicolasKL]

Auto insurance is a totally different animal from health insurance.

Not in a manner that makes a meaningful difference to his point. What about health insurance makes it impossible to be run as a non-profit?

 

[NicolasKL]

You'd think, but they don't want to give up their bonuses.

Tough ****.

 

[JerryLove]

Tough ****.

For whom? Because it doesn't seem that we are the ones in charge.

 

[Jed M]

For whom? Because it doesn't seem that we are the ones in charge.

That in a nutshell is our problem.