[ingelein]

Originally Posted by justpoorfect

I am sure Timothy has contingency plans in place for his daughter's coverage, so please don't think I am attacking him, but if this pre-term birth were visited on a "regular" person who is depending on employer-based insurance, their options are then limited, especially if the baby develops chronic complications. There may be a lifetime cap, no? What about if the company folds? Can the employee even contemplate switching to another employer? As far as I can see, that person is now obligated to continue with that original insurance policy, at whatever price, as long as there may be any lingering need for coverage, unless they have the means to pay cash for all care. What if the employee is hurt/dies/goes to prison?? The possibilities are too many to plan for, as a "regular" person!!

Didnt someone post a story about a family who's child's medical bill was up to a million , the cap amount for their insurance and they found themselves needing SChip? Maybe someone remembers it and can repost it. You make a good point.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Baptized_By_Fire

Isn't that our current problem with managed care?

Yes it is - gov't interference in our insurance IS the current problem with managed care. So, why on earth would you turn over MORE of your care to gov't?

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

What choice would a person have if they didn't like their current insurance plan?
I mean a person who has suffered four myocardial infarctions, the first in his thirties, episodes of a potentially lethal arrythmia requiring an implanted defibrillator, a pacemaker, and still needs cardioversion.

What are this persons choices?

Kill employer sponsored insurance, allow for TRUE insurance for catastrophic care, disallow denial for pre-existing conditions and let THAT be 'community rating', only, no gov't pricing controls or long definitions of coverage.

THAT would get rid of this concern.

HSA to pay for other care. Get the lobbyists of gov't out of your care and let the market rule and the cost for all other aspects of care would fall to a more affordable range than the current out of pocket care for those chronically ill.

Those chronically ill get the biggest shaft from a gov't that enables lobbyists to use gov't rules to loot and overprice a non-competitive healthcare system. Get that gov't out of your way, and the biggest beneficiary WOULD BE those that need to use the system the most.

Give the gov't complete control of the system and the actuarial tables will prove that the best way to contain costs is to freeze the chronic users out - and policy will match exactly what the wonks would advise. Gov't restricted healthcare would scare the heck out of me if I actually needed to use the system MORE. Perish the thought.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Kill employer sponsored insurance, allow for TRUE insurance for catastrophic care, disallow denial for pre-existing conditions and let THAT be 'community rating', only, no gov't pricing controls or long definitions of coverage.


~faith,
Timothy.

Ah, if only we could really do that. . . And while you are at it Tim, do the same thing to our cumbersome tax code.


steph

[HM2Viking]

HSA's and HDHP lead to worse results when compared to comprehensive insurance. The Commonwealth fund has numerous slides and articles discussing this very issue.

Baptized by Fire's point is dead on accurate when discussing how private insurance reduces access. They make money through denial of care. Cathy Crimmins in her book "Where is the Mango Princess" has a memorable phrase when referring to insurance companies. BENEFIT DENIAL SPECIALISTS.

We need a consistent coverage plan for all people.

Part A:
First Dollar coverage for an annual physical exam, annual eye exam, immunizations, annual dental exam with cleanings. Switching our system to a prevention oriented model is possible with these as ground rules.

Part B:
Medical care for chronic conditions are covered at first dollar.
Medication reimbursements for chronic conditions are based on an evidence based practice model.

The french use a model along these lines and it appears to be quite effective in holding down medical costs related to exacerbations of chronic conditions.

[pickledpepperRN]

People are dying NOW!
We have to act!
We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

The problem for the Wilkes family has never been that they do not have insurance; it’s that theirs doesn’t do them any good. For the most part, the family enjoyed more affordable large-group coverage—that is, until little Thomas was born with severe hemophilia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHNCScYpX8

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

People are dying NOW!
We have to act!
We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

Here it is, the million dollar "cap". That poor father could barely keep from crying, incredibly sad, but REALITY. Who could watch this and continue to say our current system of private health insurance should be allowed to continue to exist?

[BBFRN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Yes it is - gov't interference in our insurance IS the current problem with managed care. So, why on earth would you turn over MORE of your care to gov't?

~faith,
Timothy.

It seems to be working very well for Cheney.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by 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.

I read the article. This is my response:

This actually reflects that because wages in the community as a whole are declining that reimbursements are following the wages. In other words falling reimbursements are not causing falling wages it is the other way around. To be more specific: Falling community wage levels are causing falling MEdicare reimbursements. The article actually reflects the failure of conservative economic policy as a whole.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

People are dying NOW!
We have to act!
We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

Except, that the free market is the only 'fix' that will provide better care at affordable rates.

If we have to act, much better to go in the right direction rather than entrench gov't even more, requiring a bigger fix later.

The free market is proven to work.

Expecting gov't to provide quality on budget? No. THAT is pie-in-the-sky. THAT is what we cannot afford to waste our time upon. That panacea doesn't exist. It's not just a myth; it's an outright deception.

~faith,
Timothy.