Originally posted by EladarSo nobody gets employer aided health insurance? Private and public alike? And this solves all problems?
Do away with healthcare as a fringe benefit. Outlaw all healthcare other than catastrophic health insurance. Make everyone pay for their own health insurance and make doctors provide service at competative pricing. This will do away with many of the problems that plague the US.
It will put everyone on an even playing field and do away with a lot of the smoke and mirror stuff.
I sure wish that right wingers had at least a smidge of intelligence. You fringe folk just have no susbstance to your points and arguments.
Originally posted by EladarWho will pay for your mental health problem? Oh thats right, it wouldn't be preventative becasue you're already afflicted. Now I get it.
Yes I am. Insurance is supposed to cover bad things that might happen. If you are covering something that is going to happen, then it really isn't insurance at all. It is a pre-pay program.
Preventative care should be paid for out of pocket. By having lower premiums, you'll have money to pay for the preventative care out of pocket. When you get the bi ...[text shortened]... the job for less, then you can go to that doctor. This puts a downward pressure on pricing.
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonThis isn't a right wing thing. On the contrary, it is the super rich republicans who get the great health care. Business owners get to pay for the very best insurance, then write it off as a business expense! A real win-win for the business owner.
So nobody gets employer aided health insurance? Private and public alike? And this solves all problems?
I sure wish that right wingers had at least a smidge of intelligence. You fringe folk just have no susbstance to your points and arguments.
What happens when an employee becomes unemployed? No insurance whatsoever. Health Insurance through an employer is simply smoke and mirrors. Like everything else, the little guy gets the shaft.
What reason does a politician have for reforming health care? Their tab gets picked up by the tax payer. Make them pay for their own insurance and give them a reason to work towards lowering health care costs.
It is only short sighted buffoons who believe what we have right now is worth keeping at all.
Doctors are going to have to work. If they want to get patients, then they are going to have to provide service at a rate that people can afford. The system that we have today allows them to charge artificially high rates. We are the fools making medical professionals too rich and insurance professionals way too rich.
Originally posted by EladarI agree that the current US approach to healthcare is flawed, but do you really think outlawing insurance for preventative care would help?
Yes I am. Insurance is supposed to cover bad things that might happen. If you are covering something that is going to happen, then it really isn't insurance at all. It is a pre-pay program.
Preventative care should be paid for out of pocket. By having lower premiums, you'll have money to pay for the preventative care out of pocket. When you get the bi ...[text shortened]... the job for less, then you can go to that doctor. This puts a downward pressure on pricing.
If preventative care were mandated to only be paid out of pocket, many would not get any (e.g., the poor, the young, the foolish, etc.). That could cost a lot more (to both the individuals in question and other users of the healthcare system) in the long run.
In any event, I don't think there would be much, if any, overall downward pressure on pricing. There seems to usually be more demand than supply for doctors, and most good ones would probably still do fine with people paying out of pocket even at their current rates.
The problem is that for market mechanisms to work in health care, you need to pay doctors for curing (or containing/preventing diseases as effectively as possible) patients, not treating patients. But how does one efficiently measure how well a doctor does this? It's a prohibitively complicated problem in practise, which is why market mechanisms fail in the health care system, and which is also why the US health care system is so horribly inefficient.
Originally posted by sh76we're not the ones in control of offering these benefits, however. legislators ARE.
This thread is absurd. That you don't think a benefit is a good idea doesn't mean you shouldn't take it if given to you.
I think the home mortgage interest income tax deduction is a bad idea.
Am I going to take the deduction when I prep my income taxes? You bet your sweet a-- I will. Why would you not take something that's legally given to you?
If I didn't, I'd be guilty of neglect of the interest of my family for no good reason.
Originally posted by EladarI'm sorry but I thought your argument was abut getting rid of preventative care. I might be dense as this thought is hard to follow.
This isn't a right wing thing. On the contrary, it is the super rich republicans who get the great health care. Business owners get to pay for the very best insurance, then write it off as a business expense! A real win-win for the business owner.
What happens when an employee becomes unemployed? No insurance whatsoever. Health Insurance through an em ...[text shortened]... e are the fools making medical professionals too rich and insurance professionals way too rich.
But egads, if all employer aided health care was gone there would be an extraordinary amount of people without insurance.
I guess you could somehow surmise that all insurance drives up cost as without it there would be little demand as so few could afford it. In the long term the less demand may bring down cost with basic supply/demand thoery but there are far better ways to approach this health cost problem.
I had to re-read and I see that you weren't promagating more right wing dribble amd in that I apologize.
Kaz,
I'm approaching this from a traditional US perspective. In other words I am basing my observation on individual freedom and individual responsibility. I am not basing this on the philosophy of how to best manage the general population.
So it would be up to the individual to decide when to see the doctor. It would be up to the individual to decide which doctor the person wants to see. It would be up the the doctor and patient to decide how a doctor is to be paid(treatment or cure).
rich,
As I said to Kaz, it would be up to the individual if he or she wants to receive preventative care. You don't need to have insurance to see a doctor. If we get rid of pre-pay smoke and mirrors and simply pay a doctor in the same way we pay mechanics to fix our cars, the amount of money that doctors charge will come down.
badmoon,
If employers didn't provide healthcare, then they could afford to pay you the difference. You could then take your extra money and buy your own health insurance policy. This policy would be cheaper than the all inclusive policies, so you could take the difference and save up to pay for the doctor visits.
There was a time before health insurance. People still went to the doctor. Doctors simply didn't charge as much because they had to set a price people could actually pay.
Originally posted by EladarIn what way does more expensive health care increase someone's freedom? How many people don't want any health care when they get sick? How does taking choices away from people increase their responsibility? If the odds are stacked against you, you can always blame the system. If you get all the chances, then you have only yourself to blame. This is freedom and responsibility.
Kaz,
I'm approaching this from a traditional US perspective. In other words I am basing my observation on individual freedom and individual responsibility. I am not basing this on the philosophy of how to best manage the general population.
So it would be up to the individual to decide when to see the doctor. It would be up to the individual to decid ...[text shortened]... tors simply didn't charge as much because they had to set a price people could actually pay.
There was a time before health insurance. People still went to the doctor. Doctors simply didn't charge as much because they had to set a price people could actually pay.
Yes, a time when lots of people died because they couldn't afford the treatment that would have cured them.
i think that the medical profession is more productive now, but it's for the purpose of cramming more patients into a day, not to improve service per patient.
the problem is the supply of doctors, and the answer is to increase the supply, by lowering the bar for medical school admission, lowering the cost of medical education, automating some of the educational and admission process, and lowering the level education needed to supply most treatment.
automated accountability and strict, third party auditing of outcomes vs. treatment is also needed.
Originally posted by zeeblebotLets make sure we have people with less training proving medical services (maybe the guy who sells hotdogs on the street corner could be your doctor). I am sure any upfront savings in lower pay will be more than made up for when preventable conditions become worse. I also think adding to the layer of third party expenses is exactly what we do not need.
i think that the medical profession is more productive now, but it's for the purpose of cramming more patients into a day, not to improve service per patient.
the problem is the supply of doctors, and the answer is to increase the supply, by lowering the bar for medical school admission, lowering the cost of medical education, automating some of the edu ...[text shortened]... mated accountability and strict, third party auditing of outcomes vs. treatment is also needed.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMore expensive health care decreases the money we have to spend on something else. More expensive health care makes it impossible to have universal coverage in the US. We simply can't afford to cover people when US health care is so expensive. The only way we can cover everyone is for prices to go down.
In what way does more expensive health care increase someone's freedom? How many people don't want any health care when they get sick? How does taking choices away from people increase their responsibility? If the odds are stacked against you, you can always blame the system. If you get all the chances, then you have only yourself to blame. This ...[text shortened]... n lots of people died because they couldn't afford the treatment that would have cured them.
I don't think I ever said people should be without health care insurance. I simply said that people should pay for going to the doctor just as they would pay for going to the mechanic, changing the oil or having their tires changed on their cars. If you need medical help, then pay for it at the point of service at a place that you can afford.
People still die because they can't get treatment. This could be true because they can't afford the treatment or it could be that their medical program simply won't cover the procedure. It is also possible that a person dies while waiting in line to receive help. It is a simple truth of life that the more money you have the better medical attention you will receive. It is true with every other aspect of your life. If you have more money you eat better food. If you have more money you can get a better education. If you have more money you can have better housing and better vacations. It is a simple truth in life that having money means you can afford the better things in life. Health care is no different, even in today's enviroment.
Originally posted by quackquackI see nothing wrong with people seeing nurses and PA's for most doctor's visits. If you are seeing a doctor to receive a perscription to cure your poison ivy, then you are paying too much. Have a doctor available if a PA or nurse can't handle it, but if they can, then let them. Charge the patient accordingly.
Lets make sure we have people with less training proving medical services (maybe the guy who sells hotdogs on the street corner could be your doctor). I am sure any upfront savings in lower pay will be more than made up for when preventable conditions become worse. I also think adding to the layer of third party expenses is exactly what we do not need.
Originally posted by EladarI have an ailment or two that require preventative measurements like colonoscopies (got ulcerative colitis but who's asking), Those exams cost about $3000. Under your idea I don't see how that would be covered making me vulnerable to colon cancer.
Kaz,
I'm approaching this from a traditional US perspective. In other words I am basing my observation on individual freedom and individual responsibility. I am not basing this on the philosophy of how to best manage the general population.
So it would be up to the individual to decide when to see the doctor. It would be up to the individual to decid ...[text shortened]... tors simply didn't charge as much because they had to set a price people could actually pay.
Originally posted by EladarIf employers didn't provide healthcare, then they could afford to pay you the difference. You could then take your extra money and buy your own health insurance policy.
Kaz,
I'm approaching this from a traditional US perspective. In other words I am basing my observation on individual freedom and individual responsibility. I am not basing this on the philosophy of how to best manage the general population.
So it would be up to the individual to decide when to see the doctor. It would be up to the individual to decid ...[text shortened]... tors simply didn't charge as much because they had to set a price people could actually pay.
This is an important point that is often overlooked (likely on both sides of the argument): the “employer-paid” share of premiums represents deferred wages—that is, money that is part of the compensation package just as wages are, but deferred into payment for health insurance coverage. The same is true for pension contributions. In collective bargaining, such items are “costed out” in terms of wage-equivalence.
This policy would be cheaper than the all inclusive policies, so you could take the difference and save up to pay for the doctor visits.
This likely not true. Group insurance coverage is generally cheaper than individual coverage, even if you “save up” to pay the difference. Also, the ability to “save up” is a function of income too. In any event, you’d likely have to be paid more in wages than the cost of the group health premium in order to come out even.
[Note: I am not addressing tax issues here, between received wages and deferred wages.]