Not everyone should have a comprehensive insurance plan. In fact, I think it is financially a bad idea. If you have to pay for your own medical treatment, it is a strong incentive not to waste money on expensive treatments that you do not absolutely need. This is called rationing, and it lowers costs, and tends to result in efficient allocation of scarce money towards where it will be most effective. Depending on how much money someone has, some medical treatments may not be worth the cost. Some examples are knee replacement surgery, therapy for patients who are already terminally ill, and prescription medications of questionable or limited effectiveness. Also, the more money that goes through an insurance company, the higher costs there are of administration. The insurance company has to verify that all the money they are paying is being properly used. If every medical cost has to go through the insurance company, that is going to mean a large amount of paperwork. I believe that the best insurance policy is a high deductible plan. So why do progressives want to force a comprehensive plan on everyone? Perhaps it is because they see medical treatment as a right, rather than a personal decision to allocate one's own money. With a comprehensive plan, the insurance company becomes obligated to provide whatever health expenses you need. Another factor here is that progressives very often work for government, and are provided with a comprehensive insurance plan as part of their job. So they may have a tendency to think that what they get is what everyone else should have. This is very naive limited thinking.
Pre and post natal care is an important factor in lowering infant mortality rates which are absolutely abysmal in this country? Why do you want babies and other children to die?
How does this have anything to do with having a comprehensive insurance plan or not?!? Paying for a comprehensive insurance plan does not make it any easier to get maternity care. You are just handing money to the insurance company and they are handing it back to you. How does insurance make any sense for routine medical expenses?
The insurance companies feared that a Public option would eventually lead to the government subsidizing the public option, which would result in unfair competition. The Democrats needed the support of the insurance companies to get the law passed. Of course the insurance companies were going to support a law that requires everyone to buy comprehensive insurance. That is why they were willing to tolerate so many ridiculous mandates, because of all the new young adult customers they would get.
It's a strong incentive not to spend money on expensive treatments you do need too and a physical block for people who have no way to be able to afford treatment they need outside going in to an unsustainable spiral of debt. I disagree. The "worth" of a given medical treatment is totally independent of how much money the patient has. That's stepping dangerously close to saying the value of an individual is based on how much money they have and in an area where we could be talking about whether to save a person's life or not, that's hugely significant. That's a problem with for-profit insurance companies in general. It's also the reason the companies wouldn't accept a situation where people are discouraged (or prevented?) from buying insurance. Only to the point that it is realistic for the person to afford the potential deductable in a given situation. It might be fine for low-cost treatment but if you are hit with something requiring expensive/long term treatment, insurance with an unaffordable deducible is worse than no insurance at all. Do they? I was under the impression two of the many objections to the ACA is that the insurance being mandated isn't comprehensive at all and that there will be "death panels" rationing treatment? In a way I think it is about medical treatment being a right or at least something we should be seeking to make available to as many people as possible. There are, after all, wider social benefits to having a healthy population. There are obviously practical limitations and restrictions, though that would apply however healthcare is managed. I certainly don't see the justification for placing healthcare in the same category as sports-cars, big houses and flat-screen TVs, where it's a case of if you can't afford to buy it, tough luck.
So you think Health Maintenance Organizations are more likely to give you the health care you think you don't need? I cannot find the link now, but I remember reading a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that frequent check-ups did not improve patient outcomes, contrary to popular belief.
That's just not true. Sounds like progressive-type thinking to me. The plain fact is that there are many medical treatments with questionable or limited effectiveness, some of which can be extremely expensive. You forget that money costs life also; many people may not be willing to work for 5 years just so they can pay for extending their life 1 year. But if you are extremely wealthy, obviously the medical costs are of little consequence, anything that might help you. One more reason it is not a good idea to lump everyone into the same pool. Some people may be willing to work more to pay for certain medical treatments. Not all medical treatments are necessary. It is about managing risk and quality of life considerations. More comprehensive than a high deductible plan. People should not be required to buy it. Why not at least only require them to buy a high deductible insurance plan?
What about the patient paying for routine medical expenses out of pocket? Is that really such a novel idea??? Whether it is "affordable" or not is really besides the point, because insurance is not any cheaper.
I've no idea but I don't see what that would have to do with my factual statement that not having insurance can cause people to not get treatment that they have a medical need of. If stating that the worth of an individual's life and health isn't measured by their personal wealth (regardless of how they got it) is "progressive" then by all means call me "progressive". That's all true, but they're practical issues. Allowing those practical issues to drift in to moral concepts of the relative worth of individual's based on their wealth is indefensible though. I've no objection in principle but I don't think it's without it's own set of potential problems too (which would largely depend of the specific details). The whole reason that healthcare is such a difficult issue is because there is no answer that doesn't bring it's own problems and disadvantages.
Having to pay for that insurance can result in people not getting medical treatment they need if the insurance plan does not cover it or decides you do not need it. So it takes away from individual choice.
Why not do this expand Medicaid to twice the poverty line with a three tier system lowest end (very poor) pay a token amount say $2 to see a doctor and drugs and no deductible and can go up to say a $20 a month deductible and $6 to see a doctor and drugs. You could limit drugs to say three. With the $4 drugs at several big store chains they can use that to saving the non-cheap drugs and have a list rationing that to tested drugs that are known to work. And have a requirement for expensive care that can be planned be done in the best tourist hospital networks in India, Thailand and other nations when its a significant saving over an American hospital say 40% or more of Medicaid rates if here the heart treatment is $50,000 and its $20,000 in Thailand your going to Thailand no choice. Then for others a subsidized high cost plan and other options as needed. This would cover the lower income which seems to be the issue and those with more money who may need help but make the high cost plan affordable to use and include foreign medical care, a plan for it you get in a car accident your not going to go bankrupt.
Yes, that can also be true - the two statements aren't mutually exclusive. I think that just supports my point that there are no simple answers to this issue.
Federalize Medicaid Take it out of the hands of the states, take it over 100%, tier it from Tier I (very poor) to Tier 3 (nearer the 138% income cap under the ACA) and set premiums and some costs based on your income. Tier 1 (low) and Tier 2 (average) and Tier 3 (higher) but not to much say per year for premiums $60 to $120 to $240 with hardship considered in that. To pay for this keep the taxes in place and remove ALL funds to states for indigent care of all sorts the states having no more obligation in Medicaid will be expected to fill in the gaps. Require a Catastrophic Health Care Plan Instead of comprehensive insurance require a plan for expensive care, mandate it but by a penalty for getting it after a fair window and if your not otherwise insured this would not be an employer mandate. Like the Medicare Drug Plan if you opt out for each six month add 1% to the premiums for life say you opt out five years then decide to get coverage it would cost 20% more when you do. Having insurance and other windows would be excluded. The government is return would allow sending patient overseas to top medical networks for care, limit lawsuits and other things to drive down costs to get such coverage. State Obligations They would be expected to fill in gaps, do state run exchanges and reforms to make insurance available to their citizens since the Federal Government will take over care of the poor and low income AND those who would have expensive care issues. That would solve a lot of issues and allow states lots of options freeing up a considerable amount of money and all of this would be Constitutional to do and give states a say in many areas of insurance and coverage they can do as they wish. And states couldn't opt out since Medicaid would be fully a Federal matter which eliminates the Supreme Courts decision.
