Why do People Want to keep Private Insurance over Govt

For your situation Ben Taub is not a good choice. In fact, any emergency room may not be a good choice in that situation. However, if you are shot or burned, you want to go to Ben Taub. It is the best at those types of trauma.

 

The government manages to run its healthcare program with far fewer administrative costs - tell me why this is less efficient again?

Actually do one better, why don't you show me a list of inefficiently run government programs and their private replacements that are *more* efficient. The last industry that I can think of that changed over recently was airport security. Airport security is a big enormous hassle now, but is it less "efficient" than it was in September 2001? Some hard data please, we can test your theories. I don't know the answer I just want to know.

 

There are a lot of problems with our medical system, but I do not necessarily believe socialized medicine is the answer.

I think insurance and what people expect from insurance is part of the problem. Medical insurance has evolved from something that protected you from the costs of a catastrophic problem to something unlike other insurances. It is almost like a car warranty where if something goes wrong, you just pay a small co-pay. I think the first step is to get insurance back to the basics of just covering th catastrophes.

I think insurance has negatively affected health care providers because it distorts how they make money. The insurance company pays by the procedure (or diagnosis etc.) so the physicians rush to do as many procedures as possible. The system does not reward a physician for being better than another physician, it just rewards a physician for being faster. I think that is inappropriate: I think a physician who has been practicing for 20 years should charge and receive more than a first year physician and that a physician who is better can charge more than a lesser physician. Of course, the problem here is that it is virtually impossible to find out who is the better the physician because so much quality information is hidden.

I also believe that some of the physician's duties should be transferred to nurses and physician assistants. Emergency rooms could be much more efficient if nurses could just take of the migraines, colds, and minor cuts, while the physicians take care of the truly sick and injured.

 

I apologize if some of this has been stated in the post. I just didn't feel like reading too much information right now.

Are you that satisfied with your insurance company?

Yes, only used it a few times.

Do you just think the government can't do better?

No. This will just be more work for the government.

Do you not want to help provide for the uninsured?

Of course I do, but it is not really a problem. If you take out illegal immigrants, people on medicaid, and also people that are 2x above the poverty line, then the number becomes 8-12 million instead of 46 million. That's only about 3-4% of Americans.

Do you feel nothing is wrong with our current system, overall?

There are a lot of things wrong with the system, but a nationalized system may not work. We need to cut down on ADMINISTRATION costs, which are almost 30% now.

Are you afraid you will lose your choices of doctors?

No. I think AMA is very powerful and can prevent this.

Do you think it will cost too much?

Definitely YES. 600 billion to 1 trillion? Come on, we don't even know if this works. Why are we investing in this when Medicaid is crippling almost every state?

 

I would like to know your take on how government can reduce administration costs. I've actually done a few research topics on this particular issue. Most articles talked about how we needed to invest in new technology (15% a year instead of around 5%) for this to happen. I'm sure the government will do some of this also, but companies were already moving in this direction.

 

Medicare, for all its faults, manages to operate with just a fraction of the administrative cost of private health plans. (2% vs. 20%) - or if you believe the private insurer lobby, it's more like 5% vs. 16%.

Obviously there are many issues with Medicare - but a bloated government bureaucracy on top as many would assume does not appear one of them.

 

I blame the Nixon Admin for escalating the current mess:

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 27, 2001

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article, ``Blame Congress for HMOs'' by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, to my colleagues. Ms. Brase demolishes the myth that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), whose power to deny Americans the health care of their choice has been the subject of much concern, are the result of an unregulated free-market. Instead, Ms. Brase reveals how HMOs were fostered on the American people by the federal government for the express purpose of rationing care.

The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs. However, it was Congress which had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to costs when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to control health care cost stripped away, and because politicians where unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs, preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients, and mandating that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sounds like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, Big Government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.

Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon's plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called ``patients' rights'' legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients' Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian ``single payer'' system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.

As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called ``patients' rights'' legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient's Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!

The only true solution to the health care problems is to truly allow the private sector to work by restoring control of the health care dollar to the individual through Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits. In the Medicare program, seniors should not be herded into HMOs but instead should receive increased ability to use Medicare MSAs, which give them control over their health care dollars. Of course, the limits on private contracting in the Medicare program should be lifted immediately.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read this article and take its lesson to heart. Government-managed care, whether of the socialist or corporatist variety, is doomed to failure. Congress must instead restore a true free-market in health care if we are serious about creating conditions under which individuals can receive quality care free of unnecessary interference from third-parties and central planners.

link

 

Hilarious. Well, it would be if tens of millions weren't going without insurance. I happen to have government insurance. Texas state government health insurance, provided for all Texas state employees and available for their spouses and children at a reasonable price. And it is handled by private insurance companies. The state doesn't directly provide it, but they provide a mechanism by which state employees and their families can get good, affordable insurance. They all can.

Golly. I guess the state of Texas is a socialist empire! The horror!

 

I don't want government healthcare for one reason: I've been to the DPS.

It's a miserable and grueling experience and all I'm trying to do is get a driver's license. It terrifies me to think what it would be like if I was trying to get a heart transplant.

 

1)Not everybody gets a heart transplant when they turn 16.

2)Is it similarly miserable and grueling when you go to your mailbox?

 

I know, right?? Just think if the government tried to run a war!!!

 

Here is another way of thinking about it:

You've got a choice:

1) Do you want some people (who can afford it, or who have an employer-sponsored plan) to be able to receive good medical care?

or

2) Do you want to make really crappy medical care available to everyone?


Sorry poor people -- I choose #1.

 

Have you ever visited a WIC/Medicaid office, or tried to deal with them? Have you ever been to a Health Department? Two hours to get a flu shot. And no pregnancy tests available to get confirmation so you can be placed on WIC/Medicaid.

 

we accept the waste in the military because defense has to be a government institution.

 

No, and if I ever did, I would take 6 showers upon returning to my mansion.


Look, let's cut to the chase here. What this Government insurance proposal represents is the first step in a mammoth expansion of government and intrusion into our lives.

Step 1: Create a government insurance alternative
Step 2: Give this government entity enormous advantages over private sector insurers
Step 3: Drive private insurers out business by using unfair tactics
Step 4: Create a single payer system
Step 5: Regulate the heck out of industry, under the guise of 'it contributes to the public health and well being'
Step 6: SOCIALIST HELL (high unemployment, no labor productivity, no innovation, a stagnant economy, high taxes -- basically Old Europe)

 

the blantant disrespect for our soldiers, policemen and women, firefighters, and a great number of those in public service is not very surprising.

 

When people complain about USPS employees they are not saying the employees are terrible but the system where they work makes their service quite poor.

 

So according to some we should accept waste in defense but not in health care. What is so efficient about the current system other than it is most efficient at spending money?

 

Especially coming from the libs, who have been disrespecting our soldiers and policemen for what 6-7 years now? no cred...