[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Deny coverage for the needed procedures, or cancel his policy for undisclosed hyperlipidemia in his 30's.

That is because they don't have to be responsive to the insured. The insured, you and me, aren't their customers. Their customers are your employers and the federal agencies that protect them.

THIS is why car insurance companies will normally fix your vehicle if you wreck it: they know that YOU are their customer. Therefore, they are actually responsive to YOU.

End federal subsidies for employer driven healthcare and just watch how the price of healthcare, and the responsiveness of insurance providers, changes.

Give it to the gov't and just watch how a bloated monopoly is constantly overbudget as it sinks to mediocrity. A fair share in a dismal outcome is not fair.

It's not uncompassionate to point out a fact: humans are incentive-based creatures. Designing systems that don't take that into account is a recipe for failure. THAT'S what is not compassionate.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

I think the real point was that if he was an average Joe walking down the street in Okoboji IA that he would have difficulty with accessing and paying for quality care.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I think the real point was that if he was an average Joe walking down the street in Okoboji IA that he would have difficulty with accessing and paying for quality care.

Not if he were responsible enough to have insurance, like most of us do.

The concept that you need the gov't for that is scary. The gov't is not your friend. If the 'average Joe' can't afford his own health insurance, he certainly can't afford a place at the gov't's looting table. The gov't is bought and sold by the highest bidder, and most likely, that ain't you.

Do I want self-important do-nothing Washington 'power players' in gov't bidding, bribing and lobbying wars grifting over my healthcare? no. No. NO. NOOOOOOOOO! That's just not compassionate.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Nothing in my post implied that the average Joe was irresponsible or did not have health insurance. My post spoke to the very real problems of access, equity and affordability of health insurance for middle class Americans.

My challenge has been and remains for anyone to demonstrate with research driven and academically supported data that a consumer driven health care system for the US could deliver equal health outcomes to those achieved by the UK, France, Canada, NZ or AUS. The evidence says that the single payer systems do a better job.

Paul Krugman (in writing about the subprime mess) makes a point that I think applies equally to this discussion:

At a deep level, I believe that the problem was ideological: Policy makers, committed to the view that the market is always right, simply ignored the warning signs.

source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/.../edkrugman.php accessed today.

I think that the data says that a failure to establish effective cost controls over health care inflation through adoption of primary prevention focused care, evidence based medicine, and achieving control of administrative costs through large risk pools will destroy the US economy and significantly impoverish our children. Our children are already on track to be less well off than their parents. Why not adopt proven methods to stop the economic train wreck.

[mercyteapot]

I just feel honored to have this marvelous opportunity to subsidize Dick Cheney's existence...

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I just feel honored to have this marvelous opportunity to subsidize Dick Cheney's existence...

Me, too.

But, I suspect that YOU were being sarcastic.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

For the record, I suspect my daughter's current bill will end up being somewhere north of half a million dollars. My out of pocket maximum cost will be 3 grand. For me, THAT is what health insurance does. But see, THAT kind of expense is what insurance is SUPPOSED to cover: a protection against a catastrophic loss. Health Insurance today, in the main, can't really be called insurance: it is pre-paid healthcare. If car insurance were run like health 'insurance' then it would cover gas and oil changes - - - and cost 550 dollars a month. Oh. And 47 million drivers would be unable to afford it, depending upon their own means to put gas in their cars, not to mention, totally unprepared for 'catastrophic' need, such as an accident.

Maybe the government should provide us all with universal car insurance? To do less would be uncompassionate. Yes? By the gov't's definition of 'insurance', that would mean, gas would be 'free'. All the gas you want, all the time, at no cost to you (except for taxes and the 'rich' will pay most of that). And all the gas stations will be open, full of gas, with no lines. Right? (Hint, don't let the gov't's price fixing/gas rationing of the '70's influence your opinion of this great idea.)

~faith,
Timothy.

This is exactly the problem - very well stated too.

I doubt we can ever go back . . but I'd love to have insurance for catastrophic things only and pay out of pocket for doctor's visits and meds. Then the market would lower the prices of those things.

steph

[tntrn]

My husband was diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer on November 27, 2007. On December 6, 2007, he had a radical retropubic prostatectomy. Based on the article I've linked below, in Canada he'd be long dead before a surgery would be possible.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinio...ry/224748.html

This article was a timely one for me to read, and I find it very interesting in that the physician who wrote it works in the US and in Canada, leading me to believe he knows what he's talking about.

We have friends in Britain, who fortunately, can afford PRIVATE insurance along with what the government provides. Meaning, of course, that they can get care far more quickly when they need it.

[CRNA2007]

What about the profit you take from healthcare dollars? Are you willing to give that back and become a not for profit yourself?

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Tricare works

VA medical system works

FEHP works

Medicare works

The assorted state employee health plans work

Why not build a large group plan to cover ALL Americans?

We cannot continue to spend 31% of our health care dollars on Administration and profit.

The evidence shows that single payer will provide better care at a lower cost...

Most Americans believe that this should be a shared responsibility:

[Jolie]

http://allnurses.com/forums/f195/med...gh-266591.html

The article oramar posted in another thread shows us what happens to hospital employees' and physicians' wages when a government insurance program cuts reimbursement rates. It is naive to think that the same (or worse) won't happen if all healthcare is sponsored by the government.