Originally Posted by Forest119

I do agree that those that use the system more should pay higher premiums. Just like with auto insurance where the more moving violations and accidents you are in the more you pay in premiums.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

I do and don't like this part... A part of me says it's only fair that a sick person that requires more should be expected to contribute more in one way or the other for the extra benefit they are receiving.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

What I fear is a sicker person with lesser resources not having the same option to save their own life than a richer person with the same condition.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

To this end, I strongly agree with a 15,000 cap at which point the government will step in. I believe an independent board or body should review cases of severe expense to see that the options for treatment are viable options. This board should be unbiased by the expense, and only biased by the effectiveness of the treatment. One can invest in private insurance to supplement this if they so with, just in case the government declines if this makes everyone happy.

to address the issue of heath care providers charging too much for procedures costing more than 15,000, this (in theory) is already covered by our competition in the market place. theoretically speaking, it is he with the monopoly, either on the side of demand or on the side of supply, that has the advantage. Fear that healthcare providers will charge too much may be ignoring the fact that it is the government and not the providers with the monopoly. In addition, the government should pre-negotiate standard rates for typical procedures. Experimental procedures should be covered external from the government by private industries that wish to test and develop their procedure, thus leaving the progressive part of the industry external from the grips of government.

Originally Posted by Forest119

Education is the key. I feel these things should be a required class in high school. Money management is very, very important to one's success as an adult. Our education system should prepare people for that. Think of how the current housing crises could have been lessened if more people realized the risk they were taking on.

Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

Originally Posted by Forest119

My basic thinking is the increase in premiums will help keep the insurance industry from being nickeled and dimed to death. This means paying out hundreds of dollars each time someone decides to go to the emergency room for a twisted ankle or a sniffle. It may even lead to people paying for smaller bills out of pocket rather than relying on insurance. Again, I compare it to auto insurance, where people may not make a claim with their agent if they scrap their car on the garage door and it costs a couple of hundred dollars to fix.



This happens today and will continue to happen no matter what health care policy is implemented. Those with more money can afford better coverage with higher premiums. They also have the option to travel to other cities to attend hospitals with better care, even if those cities are in other nations. They can also afford cutting-edge experimental procedures that may not be covered by insurance.



I still don't like the idea of a government run plan. I think this could be done better in the private sector with stronger government controls. Insurance companies would then be responsible for making sure they are not avercharged, through review and pre-negotiation. You don't necessarily have to have a monopoly to have bargaining power. A national health insurance association (run and paid for by its memebers, health insurance companies, and separate from government) would be a virtual monopoly and could handle negotiations.

The problem with the big government is there is little incentive to improve business practices. Funding for the agencies is taken from a big pot of taxes collected and changes based on national priority and current tax policy. The agencies themselves have no direct control over their funding. Why spend money trying to improve something if you get no benefits in doing so?

In contrast, there is every reason for a private company to improve the efficiency of their opperation. Every dollar they save through efficiency improvements and every dollar they save by reducing corruption comes right back to them for use somewhere else. It doens't just fall into some huge government controlled pot and never seen again. The private companies that are able to de this the best are the ones that will be most successful. Those that don't will fail, and the workers will lose their job.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

What would you think about maintaining the 15,000k cap, but not having it managed by the government.... rather the implementation is managed by private industries competing for government contracts. Thus we maintain the 15,000K and private industries are encouraged to improve their practices to keep larger shares of their government contracts. Because of the 15,000k cap that the government pays for there after, the private companies would not be encouraged to deny coverage, a problem that I see with today's system. The improvement would come from the internal development and management of resources in the company. At first glance, at least, this seems to be an ideal balance (depending on what you call ideal).

Originally Posted by JeffLV

What would you think about maintaining the 15,000k cap, but not having it managed by the government.... rather the implementation is managed by private industries competing for government contracts. Thus we maintain the 15,000K and private industries are encouraged to improve their practices to keep larger shares of their government contracts. Because of the 15,000k cap that the government pays for there after, the private companies would not be encouraged to deny coverage, a problem that I see with today's system. The improvement would come from the internal development and management of resources in the company as well as negotiations with providers. At first glance, at least, this seems to be an ideal balance (depending on what you call ideal).

Originally Posted by Taomon

The cost is always pushed back onto the consumer.

Originally Posted by Forest119

This is definitely a better proposal than having the government manage the universal health care themselves. I am still reticent to giving the government even that much control over health insurance, in that it is still funded by the big pot of taxpayer money and is subject to random cuts at the government's whim. The government already has too many underfunded programs.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

Definitely concerns to be met again. I might point out, however, that it's the choice of leaving healthcare to the "whims" of the free market and the "whims" of government. The government certainly has many underfunded programs, and those may well be the programs that need to be cut. On the other hand, the government also has many over-funded programs and the reason the government over-funds them is because those programs are deemed too important to leave subject to the whims of the free market. Investments in water supply, military and police are some more obvious examples. I don't think either situation is "perfect", the question is the lesser evil.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

And I'm open to any suggestions you may have regarding reform of the private system. Keep in mind however that this isn't a situation like discussing the most effective way of making a faster car or making the best chocolate cake on earth.... people's lives are on the line every day based on how our health care performs. We don't have the luxury of looking for the best option possible, and must at some point take the best option available.

I think the best solution we have available to us is any method combines the use of government regulated minimum standards and private implementation. Be it a system like this, or a system like seen in australia, I think the government is best suited to see to our needs today and the private is best to look to the future.