Listened to a program today on Universal Healthcare..........

It was a program on the radio from the financial prespective. I did not realize this, but there have been other U.S. Presidents that have advocated Universal Healthcare.

Theodore Roosevelt - when he ran in the 'Bull Moose' Party - He Lost the election.

Harry Truman - He was a very unpopular man at the time.

Bill Clinton recently - His program failed due to a highly orchestrated campaign by U.S. Insurance Companies (AKA Harry and Lousie commericals)

This economist said that he thinks now is the time politically that Universal Healthcare will pass. His reason - Almost no in America likes the current system, with the exception of a few insurance companies. There is the political will currently in his estimation.

[d]

Quote:

Almost no in America likes the current system

doesn't mean anyone will like the alternative

Quote:

Originally Posted by d doesn't mean anyone will like the alternative

No it doesn't, but it means that a lot of people are open to one.

[califdreamer]

I've heard in the early 70s there was legislation that came close to passing that would've provided for universal catastrophic health insurance. That is, everyone had some high deductible for a catastrophic event.

Not being smarmy, but I'm curious, for those that would oppose this idea, what do you see as the major drawbacks?

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdreamer Not being smarmy, but I'm curious, for those that would oppose this idea, what do you see as the major drawbacks?

Potential problems? Hmmmmm I'm thinking of Medicare X 10

Then again, we're basically already paying for some of this anyway because many of these people are just showing up at public hospitals.

I would not be in favor of any system that prohibits you from buying coverage better than what the govt offers. That is what Bill and Hillary wanted to do

[razztazz]

Quote:

Bill Clinton recently - His program failed due to a highly orchestrated campaign by U.S. Insurance Companies (AKA Harry and Lousie commericals)

Wel, that and the fact that their plan was so buggy and occult it really deserved to fail. You wann fix medical insrance? Just fix that. They were trying to get ownership of the whole industry. THAT"S what scared people just enough to stick with "the devil they knew".

Quote:

I would not be in favor of any system that prohibits you from buying coverage better than what the govt offers. That is what Bill and Hillary wanted to do

Yeah. Among some other things. If I need help and you want to help me fine. But don't, as Harry Browne used to say, break my legs then throw me a pair of crutches and tell me "If it wasn't for me you wouldn't able to walk at all.

[califdreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saluki9 Potential problems? Hmmmmm I'm thinking of Medicare X 10 Then again, we're basically already paying for some of this anyway because many of these people are just showing up at public hospitals. I would not be in favor of any system that prohibits you from buying coverage better than what the govt offers. That is what Bill and Hillary wanted to do

So if this type of program were implemented in the right way you'd be for it?

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdreamer I've heard in the early 70s there was legislation that came close to passing that would've provided for universal catastrophic health insurance. That is, everyone had some high deductible for a catastrophic event. Not being smarmy, but I'm curious, for those that would oppose this idea, what do you see as the major drawbacks?

I consider myself a good bit right of center in general. I like the idea of the govt being a reinsurer for catastrophic health insurance. That is, an ultra-high deductible plan would be available to everyone for free* or almost free. Maybe $30k/yr deductible? Then you can buy separate gap coverage that would obviously be much cheaper for most folks to purchase. Or your employer could provide it like they do now.

*I know, tax funds would be needed to pay for this new entitlement. But we're already paying a large part of the total cost through medicare/medicaid, VA, govt retiree healthcare, etc today. Wonder how much we (as a country) would have to pay for the new ultra-high deductible plan? An extra 3% payroll tax? Maybe that plus a 3% employer match?

The type of plan I'm thinking of would allow Blue Cross Blue Shield to sell me the $30k deductible plan at, say, $10/month to cover administrative expenses (claims filing, etc). I get the negotiated rate on services and pay out of pocket. If I want to get a gap policy, I can get it for much less than what I might pay today, and it would be easier to get for those with health concerns.

Don't know if the plan makes sense, since I don't know where the bulk of the medical expenses occur.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdreamer So if this type of program were implemented in the right way you'd be for it?

Well yeah, it's already being implemented in the wrong way so why not try to fix it?

I'd like to see it done though private insurance companies though. I do believe that a lack of a profit motive causes giant waste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Wel, that and the fact that their plan was so buggy and occult it really deserved to fail. You wann fix medical insrance? Just fix that. They were trying to get ownership of the whole industry. THAT"S what scared people just enough to stick with "the devil they knew". Yeah. Among some other things. If I need help and you want to help me fine. But don't, as Harry Browne used to say, break my legs then throw me a pair of crutches and tell me "If it wasn't for me you wouldn't able to walk at all.

Well, I can see those Harry and Louise Commercials had no effect on yourself. :

[razztazz]

Actually the way this is *all supposed to work is, Capitalism is supposed to pay well enough to obviate these problems. That's the quintescence of "trickle down" if you want to give it a name. *That is how the money for things gets to the People. If that economic mechanism isn't working then alternate means of gettin the money from where it is to where it is needed (belongs) can be used.

Of course the really po'/disabled would still need a direct hand but they would be statistically pretty much nil anyway.

[astromeria]

Lately too many executives are stopping the wheels of economic progress by stuffing their wallets at the expense of both workers and shareholders. I wuz robbed!

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Actually the way this is all supposed to work is, Capitalism is supposed to pay well enough to obviate these problems. That's the quintescence of "trickle down" if you want to give it a name. That is how the money for things gets to the People. If that economic mechanism isn't working then alternate means of gettin the money from where it is to where it is needed (belongs) can be used. Of course the really po'/disabled would still need a direct hand but they would be statistically pretty much nil anyway.

I agree with the main point - let capitalism work. When a market failure results, let the govt take a shot at it. I'm seeing a market failure developing with health insurance/health care.

[Texas Proud]

I think why the market has failed is that the current system is not set up properly... there is no REAL competition... no REAL price comparison... and when it comes to our health, lot of people say 'to hell with what it costs, give me the best'....

As an example... I saw an interview with the CEO of Wal-Mart a week or so ago.. He was in to get some test done... he said he had to give the people on another floor his whole history again.. even though he had done so before and earlier that day.. they do not have a system to get this info to another area of the clinic... He gave an example of someone buying something in... let's say Portland... when they scan the item, the information of the sale is sent to the corp headquarters and the manufacturer of the item... they KNOW that they have to replace it...

Hospitals and doctors are very very inefficient... and they do not have any incentive to become efficient because they just charge more and we as consumers really do not care as it is the insurance companies that have to pay the bill...

If they made us pay 20% or 25% for everything we do, then we would start to get some efficiencies in the system..

[razztazz]

I discussed justin's idea some years ago and the people involved really couldn't give me an answer and I am not an insurance actuary, so what do I know.

Ref government as re-insurer, and using market based insurance. Wouldn't a policy from Company "A" that provides, for instance, *$30,000 *dollars of insurance, with the usual $1,000, $2,000 or (select as needed) *deductibles *be pretty cheap? And wouldn't buying a catastrophic policy from Company "B" , that doesnt even kick in till you've used 30 grand worth of care be pretty cheap? It would be like having a 30,000 deductible. For the most part most people would never even touch the insurance. That's how people lower their rates now anyway. Get a bigger deductible.

So, if this can be done via regular inursance companies, *Company A and Company B, what's the problem?

Some legislation would likely be required. Guaranteed acceptance. Geographic Overlap/reciprocation. And perhaps some .. I hate to say the friggin word but, "government subsidy" for the really hard cases or to extend "lifetime caps" beyond the paltry 1 or 2 or 3 million clams you get now. *But those things are *periperal to the actual mechanism

[wabmester]

How about this. We know two things:

1) Lifespan has improved over the years because we've basically eradicated childhood diseases. Sick kids make sick adults.

2) Getting fat is really bad for you.

So, give free medical care to all kids. Anything goes. Taxpayer/employer subsidized.

And charge fat people a premium. Give them an economic incentive to slim down.

[razztazz]

Quote:

If they made us pay 20% or 25% for everything we do, then we would start to get some efficiencies in the system..

Yeah, Charge the victim. Why aren't they all in the g/d medical business killing themselves to be efficient? I thought that was why the Business Class is so worthy of worship. They never get it wrong or waste a penny.

If there is money to be made in being efficient they will simply be effcient. If there is money to be made being INefficient... well, follow the money. And it's always easier to be ineffecient.

Simply charging the victims is NOT a market force that will cause efficiency. It will screen out some at the bottom due to inability to pay and the inefficient Class will just make it up on those who can still pay. Business 101. Maybe if they raised the cost 20% for most people but many millions of dollars per office visit for rich people THEN it would work

Like I said above... the real problem is the system doesn't pay enough people enough. So we have to engage in all this talk of programs for this and that and "blame" somebody ... *in ths case *the ones with the least control over what's f'd up

[Dry Socks]

I think people that are healthy have lots of choices regarding insurance. The big problem is for people with pre-existing conditions. Those people have NO choice at all.

The insurance industry is failing those people. But why should they care

[razztazz]

Quote:

How about this. * We know two things: 1) Lifespan has improved over the years because we've basically eradicated childhood diseases. * Sick kids make sick adults. 2) Getting fat is really bad for you. So, give free medical care to all kids. * Anything goes. *Taxpayer/employer subsidized. And charge fat people a premium. * Give them an economic incentive to slim down.

More Let's Play Russian Roulette that doesnt solve the problem as much as laugh at it

Why should kids get a free ride? Or any subgroup to the exclusion of *everybody else? Women? You know they those other medical concernes. MArried people? Families? Gotta give them a free ride because families are important . Blacks? Every study says they are in bad ealt so need more medical care. *Healthy, childless, unmarried *30 yrs old white males *need medical care too. Probably least likely but why stiff them?

And who's fat? Its pretty subjective and not predicitve of anyting except tight pants in any individual. Then of course they lower the limit like they always do with weight and cholesterol, blood pressure etc so Poof! More people we can F'k by declaring them ill or social undersirables.

No, the problem is access to medical insurance.

[razztazz]

Quote:

The insurance industry is failing those people. But why should they care

Of course. Like I said somewhere earlier... they bounce some sick person (or decalred sick by the medical industry. Formerly normal cholesterol now said to be "high" adds .01% "risk" of heart attack some time during the next 40 yrs of your life.) but they make it up by charging more for thsoe who, for the time being, can still afford it. And they have no control over what is considerd "sick " and '"requires treatement". The medical industry makes these things up in large part for revenue enhancment purposes