ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

OH GREAT, eliminate one of the things that makes the bill pay for itself....

Also, you DO realize (no, you don't... because you have denied this in the past ) that this was one way of not passing medical costs onto the rest of us. For someone who goes berserk over the possibility of paying less than a penny for women’s care, you are strangely on the other side of this one!

Considering the bill never paid for itself since it's passing, I don't know how you care about whether or not it's paid for. Furthermore, how does increasing taxes on medical devices lower the prices of health care? Every single business tax is passed on to the consumer or cut from other business spending (this specific one will directly harm medical device R&D).

Typical.. the bill has not been fully implemented, was not projected to pay for itself until a few years after its full implementation, for reasons already discussed and you seem to thing the argument "its not yet paid for" has validity, and further that its just fine that one of the provisions that would add money to the budget was removed.

A cynic might see a pattern there...

If that really were the issue, then your demand would be to insert a co-pay, NOT to demand that employers get the right to choose.

I have demanded that as well.

No, that's a copout. If that is your argument, then that is your ONLY demand... the rest is just garbage or, yes, denying women the right to healthcare coverage.

This claim, again! Seriously, you just got through saying that you know its not free….. and now you are claiming that you are paying for “other people’s healthcare!’

No, you pay for your insurance. I pay for my insurance. I realize you like to ignore the purpose of insurance, but stop pretending this is about a crusade of payment instead of just a backdoor attempt to control women’s ability to get care they need.

Every person who gets a governmental subsidy to buy their insurance is not paying for their own insurance. Every person who gets coverage through the major expansion in Medicaid is not paying for their own insurance. So no, it's a lie the every person is only paying for their own insurance. Taxes are meant to pay for governmental services, not passing money to other people.

No dice. The debate here is specifically over women’s health care, and whether employers can select this specific coverage to exclude, not providing care for the indigent. That is a different issue.

Oh brother! There is nothing consistant or honest about any of your views. Just face it. Your real objection is you don’t like women taking birth control or getting other services. The rest is just a back-pedaled attempt at justifying your views.

If I didn't like women taking birth control, we wouldn't be using it. I think it's very wise to use birth control....I think it's very unwise to expect someone else to pay for it.

No, but go on trying to convince yourself that.

You oppose this because of misguided ideas about birth control and sex, not to mention women’s health. Several folks have tried to educate you, but you prefer ignorance.

However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.

And again, “paying for other people’s issues” is precisely what insurance is about. I don’t see you raising objections to paying for people’s insulin. Same principle.

YOU are not paying for my or anyone else’s healthcare. You ARE paying for insurance. The way insurance works is that money gets pooled so that when you really need something incredibly expensive, its there for you. To claim it is somehow “abusive” because you stay healthy is not “free marketism”, its stupidity. Might as well cry because your house didn’t burn down!

Except that I'm paying for my insurance AND providing subsidies for other people to buy insurance. So yes, that IS paying for someone else's healthcare.

No, not in this case. You are buying your own insurance. ALL insurance is about “providing subsidies” to people who need more care. You are not paying one iota more because birth control is covered under your policy than if it were not. In fact, there is a good chance that use of birth control is keeping your health care costs down, since raising a baby and taking time off from work cost far more than a few pills (even if the more expensive type) Women who need it, however WILL be paying more. Your argument plain and simply FAILS.

Right now, you and your family are apparently not ones who have a lot of insurance claims. You can sulk and continue to pretend this is some big plot or you can be thankful that you have your health AND that should you get sick or seriously injured, the insurance will still be there…

OH, yeah, and while you are about it, (heaven forbid, but..) if you happen to have a disabled child or get into a serious accident, then you and your family will continue to receive coverage under your insurance plan, which they would not if the prior rules had remained in force.

[Night Strike]

However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.

What person is being denied medication of their choice simply because insurance doesn't pay for it? Is the insurance company or employer blocking them from paying for it out of their own pockets? That's the fundamental question here. If people are not allowed to buy it on their own, then there could be a need for governmental intervention. Every other answer is simply using the government to decide who must do the paying. In this case, you want the employer/insurance/government to pay for the medication instead of the user (yourself).

[PLAYER57832]

However your desire to remain ignorant does not translate into a right to tell people outside of your immediate family what medication they should and should not have.

What person is being denied medication of their choice simply because insurance doesn't pay for it

First, they are being denied a service that rightfully, that under any other employer would be paid for. Even if not flat out denied, saying that it is perfectly OK to expect women to pay a minimum of $100 up to over a thousand just becuase their employer wants to "take a stand" and that they have no reason to object is idiotic.

Second, many families are barely getting by on their incomes. If they have to shell out for all the women's health services not covered under this (and don't delude yourself into the idea that it is just birth control being eliminated), then yes, they will often just not use it.

Thirdly, your whole assumption that this is somehow a subsidy you are paying is just plain wrong. The REAL truth is that insurance companies provide this because it reduces their costs, not adds to it. By rights, any employer denying this should be charged an extra tax to pay for the extra children's health care costs and pregnancy costs that will arise.

Finally, there is the basic principle. Coverage is offered or denied based on formula insurance companies use that get into both effectiveness and cost of various things. I don't agree that this is a great system, BUT if employers are allowed to just "opt out" on their own, then it leaves the door open for employers to just "opt out" of any kind of medical coverage. Jehovah's witnesses can deny coverage for blood transfusions, etc.

Is the insurance company or employer blocking them from paying for it out of their own pockets? That's the fundamental question here. If people are not allowed to buy it on their own, then there could be a need for governmental intervention.

No, its not the “fundamental question”, its not even the question at all. The point is that women ARE PAYING for insurance and need this coverage, but are now being told by some employers to pay extra because the employer doesn’t happen to agree with these women’s healthcare choices. It just is not the employer’s place to have ANY say in that.

This is not about the government, except that the government is saying to employers that if they provide insurance, it must meet certain standards. This coverage is one of those standards.

In this case, you want the employer/insurance/government to pay for the medication instead of the user (yourself).

No more than saying I want the insurance to pay for a cast on my son’s arm if he breaks it.
Again, that is how insurance works. The idea that this gets to be an exception is the issue.

[Night Strike]

Player, what gives you the right to dictate what product a private business provides? If you don't like that product, you go shop somewhere else. Instead, you use the government to dictate that other businesses provide you with what you want. There is no freedom of choice with you.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, what gives you the right to dictate what product a private business provides? If you don't like that product, you go shop somewhere else. Instead, you use the government to dictate that other businesses provide you with what you want. There is no freedom of choice with you.

Are you truly serious!
Healthcare is not an optional product. Health insurance is not an optional product. The means of delivery of health insurance at this time is through people's employers or the government. It is the government's role to ensure that PEOPLE, not private business interests are protected. Businesses are protected in that they are extensions of private people, but are protected only to the extent they do not seriously impinge upon people's lives and safety.

This falls under that mandate.

Besides, this is about targeting women's health specifically, not general mandates. We all know you want to do away with government. You are under the illusion that simply letting business decide how to run the world will function. We get that. Its a very stupid position, but it is your position. However, to target women's health specifically is the issue here.

[crispybits]

NS, imagine around 30 years ago, when people believed that HIV/AIDS was a "gay disease", someone advocating that health insurance providers should be allowed to deny care to sufferers of that disease because "gayness" was their choice and contracting the disease came from actions they voluntarily took part in, and they were able to pay for treatments for that disease out of their own pocket if they wished. It's perfectly analogous with your position here.

Or that if someone shoots themself in the foot by accident on a hunting trip the treatement should be paid for out of their own pocket rather than from a health insurance policy that they have?

There is a case that many of the illnesses and injuries in modern society are in some way at least partly self-inflicted. We all take calculated risks every day to be part of society, driving cars, going into rooms where someone may have a contagious disease or there may be an unknown hazard in the environment. In part almost anything that can go wrong with our health can be traced back to a decision we made voluntarily to participate in an activity.

Health insurance isn't payment for the services provided by hospitals and clinics. It's payment into a pool of money that then provides healthcare to all of the policy holders as and when it is necessary. It doesn't make a difference if the injury/sickness is self inflicted or not, if you have an injury or sickness and you need treatment, you receive it under the terms of the policy. You are not paying for anyone else's treatment, you are paying for your treatment should you require it. Why not make a similar argument about home insurance, I mean why should you pay for repairs to the home of someone who forgot a pan of oil on the cooker and burned the house down? Why should you pay for repairs to a mosque or synagogue if you don't believe in their religion? It's nonsense.

The ethical considerations of which treatments are offered and performed are down to doctors and patients, not insurance companies or third parties that provide the policy as compensation for work performed.

[Night Strike]

Besides, this is about targeting women's health specifically, not general mandates. We all know you want to do away with government. You are under the illusion that simply letting business decide how to run the world will function. We get that. Its a very stupid position, but it is your position. However, to target women's health specifically is the issue here.

Again, you fail to understand anything I post about. I have never once said I want to do away with government. In fact, I have clearly stated that I want a government that actually follows to the letter the Constitution instead of passing every single mandate and regulation that they want to on whatever whim they wish. And this only applies to women's health in the fact that the government is now mandating coverage of controversial medicines without the recipient even paying a dime for it. If you REALLY cared about people getting equal treatments, you'd be mandating that every insurance policy pays for every single medicine on the market. But you aren't. All you're mandating are the medicines that you don't want to pay for yourself. It's the ultimate example of greed, yet you're too blinded to see it.

Why not make a similar argument about home insurance,

Because home insurance isn't mandated simply because a person is alive.

[thegreekdog]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

[jj3044]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

And lastly, charities can and will take care of those in need (12). It should be noted that the number of people unable to afford health care would plummet once the above measures were put into place.

Again, costs and disease prevalence would increase dramatically in the long term, as this does not support PREVENTION of disease. Having insurance cover preventive services and offering incentives to have people get those age/gender specific screenings is the #1 way to improve outcomes and make our population healthier, which will lower costs int he long run.

[BigBallinStalin]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Licensing is monopolized by the medical profession. This began in the 1910s to counteract doctors who offered their services to the members of mutual aid societies at significantly lower prices. The established professionals did not like this competition, so they pleaded with their State governments to establish licensing procedures, thus granting them the monopoly over who would become a doctor.

[tzor]

Are you truly serious!

Yes he is truly serious.

Healthcare is not an optional product. Health insurance is not an optional product.

Claptrap and bullshit.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Thomas Jefferson
To suggest that something is not optional is to suggest that someone does not have the liberty to decline.
The Federal Government isn't your Mommy.

The means of delivery of health insurance at this time is through people's employers or the government.

Which is crap. It may have been mediocre crap back in the previous century when most people worked at the same job for their entire lives, but it's absolute crap in the 21st century. The enforcement of crap into required crap is not just crap squared, it's crap cubed.

It is the government's role to ensure that PEOPLE, not private business interests are protected.

No it's not and no it doesn't. How in hell can the government ensure anything about the people? The only god damned thing that government cares for is government. There are no philosopher kings, there are no benevolent angels, there are only people who occupy a legal monopoly and want to keep it that way. Government never helps the people and never will help the people. People will only do the minimum things required to retain their positions within government. There is no difference between government and private business other than the former is allowed to have the power of law and the military.

We all know you want to do away with government.

And we all know you worship government and follow notions that are as old (and useless) as Plato's Philosopher Kings from his "Republic." I believe he (as well as myself) wants LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Because, in effect all government is monopoly and all monopolies are inherently bad because they have the means of killing off competition that would force them to become efficient.

The Government is not your Mommy.
It's more of a potential abusive parent, if you let it.

[jj3044]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Licensing is monopolized by the medical profession. This began in the 1910s to counteract doctors who offered their services to the members of mutual aid societies at significantly lower prices. The established professionals did not like this competition, so they pleaded with their State governments to establish licensing procedures, thus granting them the monopoly over who would become a doctor.

Somehow this doesn't make me feel any better at all BBS. If I am going to listen to a physician or let one operate on me, I want to know that there was an objective test that he/she took where they had to demonstrate that they were qualified to give said advice, or cut me open.

[thegreekdog]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Licensing is monopolized by the medical profession. This began in the 1910s to counteract doctors who offered their services to the members of mutual aid societies at significantly lower prices. The established professionals did not like this competition, so they pleaded with their State governments to establish licensing procedures, thus granting them the monopoly over who would become a doctor.

Somehow this doesn't make me feel any better at all BBS. If I am going to listen to a physician or let one operate on me, I want to know that there was an objective test that he/she took where they had to demonstrate that they were qualified to give said advice, or cut me open.

Then you can choose to go to a licensed professional to get your broken bone set. Perhaps I will go to an unlicensed person for the same service and pay less money.

[thegreekdog]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Why would it increase costs in the long-term?

[

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Your objections don't make sense. They are knee jerk reactions based upon you being conditioned to believe that healthcare is somehow different or better or special. Perhaps you trust a doctor with an MD after his or her name (or a D.O., which is different - do you feel different going to D.O.?) But that doesn't mean people NEED to go to a licensed practitioner.

[

And lastly, charities can and will take care of those in need (12). It should be noted that the number of people unable to afford health care would plummet once the above measures were put into place.

Again, costs and disease prevalence would increase dramatically in the long term, as this does not support PREVENTION of disease. Having insurance cover preventive services and offering incentives to have people get those age/gender specific screenings is the #1 way to improve outcomes and make our population healthier, which will lower costs int he long run.

[/quote]

This also doesn't make sense to me. Why would somone not want to prevent themselves from getting a disease?

[BigBallinStalin]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Licensing is monopolized by the medical profession. This began in the 1910s to counteract doctors who offered their services to the members of mutual aid societies at significantly lower prices. The established professionals did not like this competition, so they pleaded with their State governments to establish licensing procedures, thus granting them the monopoly over who would become a doctor.

Somehow this doesn't make me feel any better at all BBS. If I am going to listen to a physician or let one operate on me, I want to know that there was an objective test that he/she took where they had to demonstrate that they were qualified to give said advice, or cut me open.

Licensing is allowable on a free market. There would be more than one license agency per state, so it would be much more competitive, thus more open to customer preferences, innovation, higher quality, lower prices, etc.

[jj3044]

Free market solutions to healthcare.

http://www.libertariansolution.com/advo ... e---page-1
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_health_care

I just read most of the first link you put up there and I have concerns.

The purpose of insurance, of any kind, is to spread out the cost of risk; not to cover every undesirable and/or planned incident. Auto insurance covers the costs incurred from having a collision, not oil changes or flat tires. Home-owner's insurance pays for the loss of your residence to fire or other catastrophic events, not to fix peeling paint. Likewise, health insurance's proper role in our lives is to cover catastrophic and unpredictable events, like cancer. It is not intended to cover minor or planned events like doctor's visits, checkups, or prescriptions. If you want to pay a third-party to turn around and pay your doctor for you, of course it's going to be not only more expensive than insurance, but more expensive than just paying for these things yourself.

If health insurance turned into catastrophic-only insurance, our population would become much less healthier, because no one would go to the doctor to get their age/gender specific screenings, as it would cost several hundred dollars. There would then be significantly higher rates of otherwise preventable diseases, which are dozens of times more costly to treat when caught late compared to early detection and intervention. This approach would lower healthcare costs in the short term, but INCREASE costs and rate of disease in the long term.

Why would it increase costs in the long-term?

lol, I don't know how much clearer I could have wrote it... because under the proposed system, people would have to pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars for preventive services. So, most people won't do it. I work in the healthcare industry so I see these numbers on a daily basis. A lot of companies have terrible preventive service rates DESPITE the services being free! So if it costs a lot of money for these services, even less would get them done. Diseases and conditions that are not detected early are much more costly to treat in the long run. Ergo, there would be many more cases of significantly costly, advanced disease which will bog the system down with billions in otherwise preventable costs.

[

Loosen or eliminate licensing restrictions for providers. Just as you do your research before choosing an auto mechanic, or any other provider, so would be the case with a health care provider. There is no need to artificially restrict the supply of providers, which necessarily raises costs, when people can use consumer reports, private certifications, referrals from friends, or any number of resources in order to find a qualified provider.

So, someone can just up and read a physiology and pharmacology book and start treating patients? As long as you have a good bedside manner people will refer you? Is this guy kidding?!?!

Your objections don't make sense. They are knee jerk reactions based upon you being conditioned to believe that healthcare is somehow different or better or special. Perhaps you trust a doctor with an MD after his or her name (or a D.O., which is different - do you feel different going to D.O.?) But that doesn't mean people NEED to go to a licensed practitioner.

In this case, I think we will have to agree to disagree then...

[

And lastly, charities can and will take care of those in need (12). It should be noted that the number of people unable to afford health care would plummet once the above measures were put into place.

Again, costs and disease prevalence would increase dramatically in the long term, as this does not support PREVENTION of disease. Having insurance cover preventive services and offering incentives to have people get those age/gender specific screenings is the #1 way to improve outcomes and make our population healthier, which will lower costs int he long run.

This also doesn't make sense to me. Why would somone not want to prevent themselves from getting a disease?

It happens all the time. People (especially young people) think they are invincible... and if this mindset continues to flourish, they will always feel that way until one day they wake up with chest pains, go to the emergency room, and discover they have a 90% blockage and need surgery ...

As I mentioned above, I see it in my clients every day. The numbers vary per company, but in a typical group (without an incentive program) usually only has about 40-50% of their population having annual physicals... and that number scares me.

[jj3044]

Licensing is allowable on a free market. There would be more than one license agency per state, so it would be much more competitive, thus more open to customer preferences, innovation, higher quality, lower prices, etc.

See, this I wouldn't have an issue with, but TGD made it sound that he wanted to go to some schmuck with a camera and butterknife to do a knee replacement...

Are there any examples of how the licensing process today inhibits these things?

[PLAYER57832]

Are you truly serious!

Yes he is truly serious.

Healthcare is not an optional product. Health insurance is not an optional product.

Claptrap and bullshit.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Thomas Jefferson
To suggest that something is not optional is to suggest that someone does not have the liberty to decline.

I see, so you have some magic way to just refuse to get ill? Share, please.

And until you do, you know darned well that if you, or more importantly your kids, get seriously ill, you will access healthcare, and if you don't have insurance and you are not independently wealthy(even many who are), you will depend on other taxpayers to support you.

The means of delivery of health insurance at this time is through people's employers or the government.

Which is crap. It may have been mediocre crap back in the previous century when most people worked at the same job for their entire lives, but it's absolute crap in the 21st century. The enforcement of crap into required crap is not just crap squared, it's crap cubed.

I agree, and have said so many times. Employers have no business in employee's healthcare. However, denying women specific coverage is not about that argument. Note the "at this time" bit.
Claiming that as justification for denying women's coverage specfically is not valid.


The rest of your post is just a bunch of rightwing claptrap that has as much to do with what I said as Viceroy’s ideas have to do with evolution.. .and note that your sourcing is pretty similar…. I will tell you the same thing I told him. To understand another opinion, you have to actually read that opinion, not what you think others are saying.

[thegreekdog]

lol, I don't know how much clearer I could have wrote it... because under the proposed system, people would have to pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars for preventive services. So, most people won't do it. I work in the healthcare industry so I see these numbers on a daily basis. A lot of companies have terrible preventive service rates DESPITE the services being free! So if it costs a lot of money for these services, even less would get them done. Diseases and conditions that are not detected early are much more costly to treat in the long run. Ergo, there would be many more cases of significantly costly, advanced disease which will bog the system down with billions in otherwise preventable costs.

I guess what I'm asking is why do you think the costs would be hundreds of dollars for preventative services? That's what those costs are now, sure, but why wouldn't they decrease under a new system?

In this case, I think we will have to agree to disagree then...

Do you get your shots from a doctor or nurse or CVS?

It happens all the time. People (especially young people) think they are invincible... and if this mindset continues to flourish, they will always feel that way until one day they wake up with chest pains, go to the emergency room, and discover they have a 90% blockage and need surgery ...

As I mentioned above, I see it in my clients every day. The numbers vary per company, but in a typical group (without an incentive program) usually only has about 40-50% of their population having annual physicals... and that number scares me.

Okay, I think we're ships passing in the night here. If it happens all the time now, when people have health insurance and don't have to pay much out-of-pocket for preventative medicine, how would a "free market" healthcare system be any worse than that? I would think it would actually be better. If I knew I would have to pay for surgery out of my own pocket, I might be more likely to engage in prevenative measures. I don't know if that's true or not for everyone, but I don't know why, logically, it would be worse. That's what I'm asking.

[PLAYER57832]

Then you can choose to go to a licensed professional to get your broken bone set. Perhaps I will go to an unlicensed person for the same service and pay less money.

The part of what you are saying that makes sense is that it does not really take an 8 years of medical training, residency, etc. to know how to properly set a bone.

HOWEVER, that means a lower level of license, not no license.

I will give you the comparision. An average person will, in most cases, represent themselves if they want to fight a minor traffic charge. If they are charged with anything from embezzlement to a capitol crime, they need a well trained attorney.

AND... as a point of information for you both, the truth is its unlikely a doctor will be the one who would set your bone, unless its complicated. That depends some on the state, the hospital, but its likely to be an assistant who does that.

That said, a doctor will likley look at you, make the determination that you do need a bone set and not something else (or something in addition). That is a good thing, for a lot of medical reasons too many to list here. I can name a few, but not all... I am not a doctor and not pretending to be one.

[Night Strike]

Employers have no business in employee's healthcare. However, denying women specific coverage is not about that argument.

Then the employers shouldn't be paying for that healthcare.

And as you continue to fail to understand, specific coverages are denied under every single health insurance policy. It's just that you don't like when the ones you want are denied, so you turn to the government to force others to provide it for you.

[jj3044]

lol, I don't know how much clearer I could have wrote it... because under the proposed system, people would have to pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars for preventive services. So, most people won't do it. I work in the healthcare industry so I see these numbers on a daily basis. A lot of companies have terrible preventive service rates DESPITE the services being free! So if it costs a lot of money for these services, even less would get them done. Diseases and conditions that are not detected early are much more costly to treat in the long run. Ergo, there would be many more cases of significantly costly, advanced disease which will bog the system down with billions in otherwise preventable costs.

I guess what I'm asking is why do you think the costs would be hundreds of dollars for preventative services? That's what those costs are now, sure, but why wouldn't they decrease under a new system?

Because I don't realistically see that the cost of running an office practice declining. I don't think it has to go up either... say more than inflation... what makes you think these services would cost less in the system proposed?

In this case, I think we will have to agree to disagree then...

Do you get your shots from a doctor or nurse or CVS?

A mixture of these professionals, and for the low hanging fruit (such as administering shots), I agree that a doctor doesn't have the be the one to do it. In fact a lot of the "retail clinic" models popping up (like MinuteClinic for example) work with nurse practitioners. They can handle a lot of the lower hanging fruit and refer the more serious/complicated cases to a doctor. I think this is a great model of care where you are seeing the appropriate person with the appropriate level of skill. That still doesn't mean that I want a nurse or a pharmacist deciding one day that they are going to pick up a knife and operate on me just because they can...

It happens all the time. People (especially young people) think they are invincible... and if this mindset continues to flourish, they will always feel that way until one day they wake up with chest pains, go to the emergency room, and discover they have a 90% blockage and need surgery ...

As I mentioned above, I see it in my clients every day. The numbers vary per company, but in a typical group (without an incentive program) usually only has about 40-50% of their population having annual physicals... and that number scares me.

Okay, I think we're ships passing in the night here. If it happens all the time now, when people have health insurance and don't have to pay much out-of-pocket for preventative medicine, how would a "free market" healthcare system be any worse than that? I would think it would actually be better. If I knew I would have to pay for surgery out of my own pocket, I might be more likely to engage in prevenative measures. I don't know if that's true or not for everyone, but I don't know why, logically, it would be worse. That's what I'm asking.

Because it would be a disincentive to get your preventive tests done, especially in the younger population, and the low-income population (and hell, most middle class that are still living paycheck-to-paycheck). The health disparity among the low income population compared to higher income is already ridiculous...we are trying to bridge that gap, not make it wider. What IS working is incenting people to do things like get their preventive screenings (like the CVS program that is getting a lot of press). In these companies, they have a significantly higher rate of preventive screenings, and generally, lower total healthcare expenditures because of it.

[Night Strike]

I wouldn't call the involuntary payment of $600 an "incentive program".

[PLAYER57832]

Employers have no business in employee's healthcare. However, denying women specific coverage is not about that argument.

Then the employers shouldn't be paying for that healthcare.

And as you continue to fail to understand, specific coverages are denied under every single health insurance policy. It's just that you don't like when the ones you want are denied, so you turn to the government to force others to provide it for you.

OH BULL.
Coverage is denied or approved based on cost-effectiveness formulae constructed by the insurance companies. Its very imperfect, but the basis is essentially objective costs. This is a few employers deciding to take some kind of moral bullying stance.

Its very different, so different the Supreme court has previously declared this to be discrimination.

And... since so much of your argument is about not wanting to pay more --- why do you keep ignoring the fact that providing birth control is far, far CHEAPER than not providing it?


The fact is that if this coverage were excluded, then any employer refusing it should have to pay MORE, not less -- to pay for all the extra children's health care coverage.

The ultimate answer is, yes, to have ALL ionsurance be offered independently. However, as long as employers provide the bulk of insurance, which will be as long as they get a tax benefit, then they need to provide full health covereage, not "pick and choose".

[thegreekdog]

Because I don't realistically see that the cost of running an office practice declining. I don't think it has to go up either... say more than inflation... what makes you think these services would cost less in the system proposed?

I can think of a few factors that could decrease costs under the system proposed. First, competition between insurance companies should generally drive down the cost of insurance. Second, competition between licensed doctors and licensed "other medical professionals" should generally drive down the cost of healthcare. Third, there is some substantial evidence that the government regulation of insurance and control of government insurance contributes to rising costs. This would be eliminated for the most part.

A mixture of these professionals, and for the low hanging fruit (such as administering shots), I agree that a doctor doesn't have the be the one to do it. In fact a lot of the "retail clinic" models popping up (like MinuteClinic for example) work with nurse practitioners. They can handle a lot of the lower hanging fruit and refer the more serious/complicated cases to a doctor. I think this is a great model of care where you are seeing the appropriate person with the appropriate level of skill. That still doesn't mean that I want a nurse or a pharmacist deciding one day that they are going to pick up a knife and operate on me just because they can...

My children have seen nurse practitioners and my insurance company gets charged around the same amount (and my healthcare costs and health insurance costs don't decrease), despite that they have seen doctors. I'm certainly not suggesting you see a nurse practitioner or pharmacist to get your brain surgery, but for preventative care or for routine checkups or even for fixing broken bones, why would you pay for a doctor when you can pay less money for someone equally effective?

Because it would be a disincentive to get your preventive tests done, especially in the younger population, and the low-income population (and hell, most middle class that are still living paycheck-to-paycheck). The health disparity among the low income population compared to higher income is already ridiculous...we are trying to bridge that gap, not make it wider. What IS working is incenting people to do things like get their preventive screenings (like the CVS program that is getting a lot of press). In these companies, they have a significantly higher rate of preventive screenings, and generally, lower total healthcare expenditures because of it.

I don't think I understand your point. Let me try to sum up my understanding:

- Right now people are not likely to engage in preventative medicine.
- Right now people pay for health insurance.

- Under a "free market system" people are not likely to engage in preventative medicine.
- Because under a "free market system" people would have to pay for preventative medicine.

I guess I still don't understand what you're asserting.

In any event, CVS screenings and the like can still be done under a free market system, I'm not sure why companies would stop incentivizing employees.