How can we reduce Health Care costs without Federal Insurance?

I agree with a lot of what Nemisis said, but I think I can simplify it even further.

Insurance is gambling. How do we keep Casino's from getting more and more corrupt, like the insurance industry is?

Caps on profits. If an insurance company had to pay out 90 cents of every dollar that it takes in, it would have to lower premiums. Pass transparent billing, enforce contract law and anti-trust laws. That is very important too, but if insurance companies were obligated to return a percentage of what they take in, not a percentage of net, but a percentage of each and every dollar they touch, health care costs would come down to a realistic level.

One law, enforce the others. Done!

I might suggest you to visit this web page where you can compare rates from the best companies: http://insuranceforcheap.info/index.html?src=2YAup...

RE :How can we reduce Health Care costs without Federal Insurance?

National Health care is a financial disaster waiting to happen, in my opinion. Since we need a solution that the majority can agree upon, not just one mandated by one political party, what can we do to reduce health care costs other than a National Health care system.

The Federal Government is notoriously inefficient. There must be a better way than letting them take over 10% of our economy!

2 following

I suggest you to visit this internet site where onel can compare quotes from different companies: http://insurequote.info/index.html?src=5YAxnu68umH...

RE :How can we reduce Health Care costs without Federal Insurance?

National Health care is a financial disaster waiting to happen, in my opinion. Since we need a solution that the majority can agree upon, not just one mandated by one political party, what can we do to reduce health care costs other than a National Health care system.

The Federal Government is notoriously inefficient. There must be a better way than letting them take over 10% of our economy!

2 following 3 answers

1

maximum civilized countries of the worldwide have reasoned well being care to be a non-income entity, understanding that it incredibly is immoral to learn obscenely from a individual's well being themes in basic terms because it incredibly is unethical to exclude from insurance people who boost pre-latest well being situations, mutually with diabetes. there's no longer something incorrect with making a income till it deprives somebody of their existence or well being. That looks to me to be the constitutional concern at stake right here. in basic terms using fact somebody is unlucky sufficient to be born or boost in existence a severe ailment, they might desire to no longer be confronted with the evil decision of scientific care and financial ruin or non-scientific care and death. maximum countries figured that out a whilst in the past. in user-friendly terms the greed in this united states of america enables it to be skipped over. It stuns me that we've got confidence government to teach our young ones and police our streets yet no longer without postpone rationalize that it won't get entangled in well being care. of direction, it already is in contact, and does a greater constructive, greater quite-priced activity of doing so, in medicaid, medicare and veteran's care. whilst each and every of those have their themes, they're much less intense priced than inner maximum-run carriers whilst absent the arbitrary income-triggered exclusions rampant interior the internal maximum sector. the total debate would be moot in in user-friendly terms some years. IF issues bypass as they presently exist, interior 5 to 10 years, well being care would be priced previous the attain of maximum people and maximum agencies. At that factor, government will might desire to step in, and in a much greater aggressive way than something being debated now. Like government value controls on each and every little thing from docs' salaries to drugs to treatments. Like regularly occurring government run well being care, with inner maximum insurers relegated to area of interest industry supplemental rules. Even Republicans in Congress comprehend this could be a fact interior the destiny using unavoidable necessity, yet they might quite "dither" for now to get even though political benefit they are able to get interior the subsequent 2 nationwide elections, and face the music while they might desire to. unhappy. fairly.

You are correct. Best plan I've seen:

QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.

That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).

http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com

Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World

Nathan also wants to:

enforce CONTRACT LAW--now too often legit claims are denied, which drives up costs to all of us while insurance execs get blood money in the multi-millions

Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPeenotestimo...

Furthermore:

"the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.

enforce ANTITRUST laws--right now about half the major markets have price fixing by the powerful because there really is NO competition:

A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”

(hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’" Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion."

--Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128

institute PRICE TRANSPARENCY:

health care is the ONLY field where you never have any idea of what something will cost you. For the majority of folks with no major health issues, they say, "I know what my premiums and co-pays will be"--nice, but irrelevant. Go back to CONTRACT law and the routine denial of legit claims for one.

NEWS FLASH: NOW Medicare and some of the companies you may have selected as your option has, since the beginning of the year, put it in doubt about whether or not they will pay for an EKG or physical.

You're not seeing that in the news, but if you're on Medicare (or care for someone who IS) and take him to the doc, you will learn the truth then.

Now how is that right or acceptable? The disabled on Medicare CAN NOT work. The truly elderly (65 is a joke--but how about 75 and up who ARE actually elderly) probably don't have much money either and FOOD, GAS, UTILITIES, etc. have all gone up substantially in the last two years. A physical is HUNDREDS of dollars--when you're not counting on paying that--that's a hell of a wallop. What if they find something as well? YIKES! So for the folks who need a doc once a year, this is about folks in NEED of medical care and THIS IS YOUR FUTURE and may well be your parents' reality this year. Medicare IS broke and broken.

Anyway, as all the charges for things are in the computer and ALL Medicare price lists and insurance lists are computerized, there is NO real work in letting the public see the truth. That they deny us taxpayers the right to see what our tax dollars support ("charity" hospitals and Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP for example) that is WRONG. They do it because the uninsured subsidize the insured. No, not illegals who get everything free, but THESE folks:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/conten...

AND

When 75% of the people who declare bankruptcy over medical bills ARE INSURED, then insurance is CLEARLY not the answer.

"Aldrich’s situation is "asinine" but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered.

...

Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/

Yes, 25% of the folks are without insurance and charged probably three times as much as the insured on average. Because insurance is corrupt in the US, those with insurance are NOT protected from bankruptcy either.

Nathan goes on with more (and you should take the time to read her plan in the PDF--only sensible one out there that deals with the ACTUAL problems not "lack of insurance" which is clearly NOT the problem).

We need more homegrown, US-educated doctors, nurses, etc. Right now the US system DEPENDS on 25% of all our residencies being filled by FOREIGN MED GRADS. This is wrong for several reasons:

we turn away thousands of well-qualified US students from US programs to ENTER med school (not residency) because we don't have enough slots. There are states with NO med school in them, by the way.

we are taking students with iffy med eds from overseas and having them, as residents, practicing on real patients on the way to treating real patients.

we are STEALING doctors from POOR countries that NEED doctors. There is not a single country anywhere in the world that does not need more doctors--check it out.

Resolution? More med school slots. Keep standards high. Give OUR citizens good educations and careers and see the laws of supply and demand kick in. Alleviate current physician shortages which will grow much worse over a short space of time. Reduce the burden on docs. Reduce their error rate from being overworked and having too little time to spend with patients.

Nursing and some other fields fit that same profile as above, but docs are what is most essential for the very ill. ALSO Nathan has ways to reduce the student loan burden for SUCCESSFUL students. Her point, the logical one, is that students should take the risk--and the loans--to get the ed. Once they have it, we should offer ways to reduce their student loan debt--a win-win for everyone.

No reason to NOT bulk-buy prescription meds for the government programs. The VA does it; Medicare is prohibited. Just another GIFT to big pharma. Not talking about underpaying because WE subsidize the drug R&D for the WORLD, but we can make the drugs more affordable.

Nathan applauds growth of walk-in clinics at Walmart, drug stores, grocery stores, etc. Lab work that can be done there or with periodic set ups in places like grocery stores. Other legit cost-reduction measures.

Essentials of her plan include:

CATASTROPHIC CARE for those on the plan (open to ALL). Catastrophic care is ALWAYS cheaper to provide AND just as the premiums are sliding fee scale so everyone CAN afford to be on the plan (funding IS explained in the book with NO new taxes for people at all), so are the co-pays and the "limit" at which the insurance policy kicks in. Mary Doe, with her associates in accounting, has two kids and her "husband" runs away like a louse. Her income and expenses entitle her (right now we give it for free in too many cases) to being able to get the necessary med care for a REASONABLE price that is lower than Joe Executive married to Lawyer Sue with no kids. Mary's level of catastrophic expensive might be $2K and Executive & Sue might have a $7K deductible. So what? If they had a PRIVATE plan it would probably be $7K anyway. If they don't ever get really ill, doesn't matter anyway.

EVERYONE gets discounted prescription meds for NECESSARY conditions (no fertility or ED drugs. They still exist. Buy your own.) IF a person is battling cancer, his drugs are covered. Just as his NEEDED procedures are instead of the JOKE that is allowed with insurance now--their co-pay may "only" be $50K or $100K for a bone marrow transplant. Gee, glad I'm covered while the CEO takes home around a billion a year.

There IS a reason why when government isn't interfering too much (LASIK and plastic surgery) that costs are LOW and drop. There IS a reason why Medicare isn't sure if it can be bothered to pay for a physical anymore (inept administration).

Nathan also provides one physical with follow up per year which is ALL the care the vast majority of folks need in a year. Reasonable co-pay. One ER visit IF NEEDED (ending ER abuse is discussed in the book) is added so no one gets it in the shorts