Single Payer is “LEFTY! Eeeew no way!”
The current system of insurance tied to employment is a disaster. It’s crumbling.
What do you want (that’s feasible)?
Remember, the plan has to address the needs of most citizens.
it doesn’t have to address the needs of any of them. Not a federal issue
5 Likes
Congratulations, your health insurance is not good in California. No treatment for you.
Might want to read the 14th Amendment.
Moved across the river? Too bad, you can’t use that doctor anymore.
Pre-existing condition? You can never move.
Some ideas which in my opinion should be starting points for consideration. However as with all things healthcare is an issue that intersects with so many other issues. There is not one single thing that can be done, there has to be a holistic approach to reducing health care costs.
-
Expand HSA so that they can be opened for children at birth (similar to a 529 plan for qualified education expenses).
-
Mandate all health care providers to provide their billed charges for services online or upon request together with their clinical quality results. This will allow consumers to compare costs and make decisions based on both price and quality of care.
-
Educate the public on alternatives to the ER.
-
Expand the availability of telehealth which includes virtual visits.
-
Expand Medicare to cover not those who are the poorest in society but all children under 18 and adults over age of 70.
-
Tighten up patents to eliminate pharma companies from extending the patent past 20 years.
However there are other barriers to reducing the cost of healthcare. transportation issues for those in rural areas or urban areas with an inadequate public transportation system. Access to affordable, reliable high speed internet is another barrier especially when considering increasing telehealth services.
Social determinants of health also have to be addressed. If we can make the nation healthier then of course the need to access reduces.
2 Likes
In the context of a federal program, that should be the end of discussion … for righties.
If anything, this. I also agree with your point about expanding HSAs.
2 Likes
you might want to understand it
all factors that you will have to consider when you choose whether and how to exercize your right.
It’s only a federal issue when seditious Dems distort & subvert the Constitution. They are running the 14th Amendment ragged throwing anything up against the wall to see if it will stick.
The simple solution is to get government OUT of the health insurance business and leave it to the free-market competition that can operate on a national level.
1 Like
Yup. I can’t see why not.
This COULD simply be a market-driven initiative. However, the current “market” is so screwed up with different tiers of pricing (for example, out-of-pocket discounts versus insurance-covered payments.) It would be hard to standardize pricing.
Maybe the mandate would drive the non-insurance-covered cost to be advertised. I know I sure would like to know what such-and-such will (max) cost me before walking through the door.
I think a lot of the covert pricing is a function of how medical coverage plans operate right now. I’ll post some thoughts in a separate reply.
This is a crucial point. And the difference in pricing between ER and Urgent Care has a lot to do with insurance procedures too.
That’s probably a function of the individual practice, and not something to impose. But certainly a great way to reduce medical costs.
I’m opposed to expanding government programs, as a general principle. We have Medicare for 65 and older already (whether or not you want to use it.) And we already have Medicaid for needy citizens.
2 Likes
Those who have stood on the position to leave health insurance to the free market, how do you factor inflation? I’m worried it will go the way of groceries and housing.
how about when they don’t pay for it we take it out of their earned income credit!
They’ll learn quickly
Insurance coverage. (Actually, a lot of what we call insurance coverage isn’t catastrophic (which is what actual insurance is for). It’s just medical coverage that the consumer (or the employer, or a combination of the two) pays for on a monthly basis – and overall the amount paid into the coverage is more than the amount the coverage pays for.)
The extreme example is coverage for something done at the ER. An individual without coverage will often be given a hefty discount if insurance is not involved. If you are covered by insurance, the hospital jacks up the price charged to insurance. Insurance negotiates some allowed amount, and the hospital acquiesces. The individual gets charged a hefty co-pay and/or deductible. And different insurance companies have different algorithms, and often there are different algorithms within a given insurance provider based on the plan the consumer has. Then we have in-network and out-of-network differentials (a factor that really irks me.)
There are so many factors that it’s hard to know what to expect. Yes, a consumer (or his advocate) can call around to discern what to expect, but usually when you’re in an emergency or panic situation, nobody has liberty to do that beforehand. Yes, when you’re in your home town you know what primary doctor to reach out to first. You can find out which hospitals are in your network and which are not. Ditto Urgent Care facilities.
My daughter at college (out of state) had an emergency situation. Ambulance took her to Hospital-A. Surgery, treatment, extra day stay. Then I got the bill. That hospital was out of network. The one across the street was in our network. The difference was a 5-figure bill. (With enough persistence I got the hospital and my insurance to split the difference, leaving me with the amount that I would have paid had the ambulance guessed correctly which hospital to take her to.)
THIS is the game I despise the most with medical issues. A single payer system that covered everyone would address this. But I would not support that system coming from the federal government, nor would I support fedgov paying for it. It’s simply not the purview of the government.
5 Likes
And I’ll say this: A huge thing that our culture needs to address is the concept of a “right” to healthcare.
Nobody should be denied treatment if he pays for it or has coverage that pays for it.
I agree it’s a right to the extent that a provider can’t say, “You’re (fill in demographic), and we won’t treat you because of it.” Beyond an ability to pay, no one should be denied. That’s where true rights should rest.
The destitute, the homeless, the illegal alien … sure, we can’t just toss them in the street and let them bleed out. Set the broken bone, stitch the gash, give pain meds for comfort, but that’s where it should end.
Anyone should be given treatment if he pays for it. And he should get treatment up to whatever level he can cover financially.
1 Like
Not a bad list.
The right can bury its head in the sand all it wants to, it won’t change the need.
Oh I do.
What right?
Norwegian style health care kick all the illegals out and set up a point based migration system that only allow taxpayers in to help fund it.
3 Likes
