I don't know anything about the cost structure in Europe but I do know about the cost structure here in the United States. To get the medical system dems want here you need to radically change the HEALTHCARE system not (just) the HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM.
I pretty much agree, though the for-profit insurance system is the biggest problem of all as it incentivizes denial of care. But, while major problems can and will be addressed without it, single payer is the only solution I really believe will get us to the solutions they've found in Canada and Europe.
Care is not denied by an insurance company ever as they are not your medical provider. Ever tried getting your doctor to do a surgery at a price you can afford in lieu of an insurance company's negotiated rate? Also, insurance companies do not deny claims the way people try to portray. Most claims are approved and paid. Your doctor charges insurance companies a boatload to do anything though. Providers hate medicare largely because of the reduced payouts they eat from them, they'll go crazy under a single payer system. When the NEGOTIATED rate for an MRI is as expensive as it is, it is silly to demonize the insurance company for having that cost go to your deductible. One last point; most policies have a life-stop of $5 million. That is a number that is incredibly hard to meet on a single policy. I have never seen somebody reach their cap, personally.
Type 1? Type 1 is only a small percentage of all cases, so i don't see how that could get you so offended.
I should have said denial of "coverage," not care. Otherwise, the problem is that health care should not be a for-profit thing. Can you imagine if we handled police, firefighting and military defense this way? For profit? Where certain people were unable to receive protection due to their limited means? Why should health care be different?
I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't be a for-profit business, but it is. Hospitals, doctors, clinics, labs, etc. are all built around profit. Making the insurance companies, which are a FUNDING MECHANISM, live by rules that you don't make doctors, etc. live by is silly and isn't practical.
Funding is one thing; raking in exorbitant profits is another. The insurance industry is guilty of major, systemic abuses which are a matter of public record. Now we can go one of two ways here: 1. Scrap the whole broken system and replace it with a non-profit, single payer system, where care (and not profits) is the goal, or 2. Regulate the insurance industry through the health care bill that is currently being negotiated. It's clear that (1) is off the table for now. Too bad. But (2) can still make a huge difference for millions of Americans.
Hmm... http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/09/14/back-to-back-to-back_interviews.html President Obama "is looking to do what would be a presidential first: sitting down for interviews on at least three of the Sunday morning news shows," the New York Times reports. "White House officials said that while nothing is certain -- schedules are still be worked out and all that -- they are looking to land Mr. Obama to back-to-back appearances on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, Meet the Press on NBC, and Face the Nation on CBS. No word on Fox or CNN."
We already have the similar problem. Compare the results of 911 response times in rich vs poor neighborhood. Compare fire safety of cheap vs rich apartments.
Acknowledged. Poor people still get worse care. The difference is they aren't charged for that pleasure. We don't have private companies sending bills for services rendered to people whose houses just burned down or whose family members just got murdered.
Changing the health insurance system will change the healthcare system. In fact, since insurance is the primary funding for healthcare, it is probably the strongest lever for effecting change in healthcare. Health insurance isn't the only industry that's messed up. Healthcare has a lot of dysfunction that needs some radical change.
There is also the option to take what IS working in the healthcare/insurance industry and propagate that across the board. While it is patently obvious that there are uninsured folks, underinsured folks and folks who have policies that hose them over, there are also a number of good insurance programs/policies out there. No need to scrap those.
I don't think I said all pre-existing conditions are avoidable. Two separate points. First point is that you can't expect insurance companies who are for profit to take on a guaranteed loss. That isn't insurance. That is charity work. This goes back to my point on why we approach health care completely wrong. Second point is the people who live unhealthy lifestyles. This includes existing and pre existing conditions. The healthcare situation is not an easy solution, but mirroring it after a flaw system is a disaster.
Yeah, just as all lung cancer is not caused by smoking. Just as all skin cancer is not caused by sunbathing. Just as all AIDS is not caused by bad sexual behavior. Just as all cases of obesity is not caused by eating habits. On and on and on we can go with exceptions. Fact remains a huge portion of our health problems are preventable. If you're an exception, then quit getting offended because obviously we are not referring to you.
Except the prices of those are still going up at a rate far higher than inflation and wages, which is unsustainable.
Sadly, the problem is that Obama has not been in the town long enough. However, still hopeful his heart is in the right place.
This is PRECISELY the point. This is why utilities and schooling are government provided - it is simply not plausible to extend these services to everyone and make money. Provided you agree that everyone deserves health care, you've just signed yourself up for a single-payer system. Thanks Space Ghost - I endorse your viewpoint.
Good point. They are also not available if you are not in a group. have a pre-exisiting condition, have a familly member with a big health problem, a co-worker with a big health problem etc. We are trying to solve this for everyone, not just those who are young healthy and wealthy or work for a big corporation or governmental entitiy.
Yeah, but they're still suffering from the "pre-existing condition" exclusionary protocols that are PROFIT-driven. If you want to punish those with unhealthy lifestyles or "progressively" flex premiums in that regard, you need to be very specific on how that is implemented - I agree with it in principle, but I don't think it will ever work in practice.
