Sudden Confusion

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

I think the answer is both. But in reality, the mandate for individuals to purchase health care is designed to fail, leaving a single payer system to clean up after the failed mandate.

Certainly any business will decide NOT to provide a health-care benefit? ...Jim Thompson

I'm guessing "person". Can't have uninsured unemployed...

Insurance companies will be forced by law to "normalize" their rates into affordability for all, which I see as the first step to nationalizing health insurance/health care (USSR/British/Canadian models come to mind). Insurance companies will bump up all other rates to make up for the shortfall, followed by nationalization of all forms of insurance. Wait til that bubble bursts.

Mark L. Fergerson

I suspect the bubble of irrational anxieties now being blown up about healthcare costs by right wing nitwits will burst long before anything will change in the real world.

In Europe the insurance companies that cover health care costs don't seem to have much to do with insurance companies covering other risks. The US may choose to go a different way - which would be insane, but that obviously wouldn't stop them, since no sane country would have got itself stuck with a health care system that cost half as much again per head as the closest competitors and didn't provide better health care for those that it insured while the competition provides universal health care.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Now Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that Obama is a fascist?

Having everybody pay for health insurance has yet to destroy any country in Europe. Greece is the only country there that might be seen as on the verge of destruction, but that was due to tax evasion, not paying for the health care system.

If it's going to destroy the US - which seems unlikely - it would have to be because the US has managed to make it's health care system spectacularly extravagant (at half again as dear per head as even the French and German systems which deliver equally good health care and to everybody).

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I want health care, not health insurance. Why should I enrich a private company? Whose fiducial mandate, by definition, is "take in money, but not give it out."

I am firmly convinced that the US health care costs have skyrocketed out of sight is BECAUSE of health insurance, not inspite of health insurance.

At least the veterinarian prices are still low, since pet insurance hasn't taken hold too much yet.

Exactly.

The lack of government control is the real reason. Over here the prices that doctors may charge are fixed and so are the insurance premiums. The government controls what healthcare should cost so it is affordable for everyone.

No. It is largely because we lack tort reform and right now there will be pretty much zero effort in that direction. For obvious reasons. I live in the medical devices world and know what docs pay in malpractice premiums. Often this is over $100k per year and naturally that gets slapped too of the bills. Same for hospitals.

Yeah, like for the Canadians who then come to the US for treatment because some of them might otherwise die on the long waiting list. That's why many Canadians quietly maintain a "safety net" health insurances south of the border, like this one:

There's reasons for that ... Old saying up there: Access to a waiting list is not access to good health care.

Agreed, we, as patients, need to have more 'skin in the game'. (I'm not sure how to do that.) And then of course there are drug costs.... Explain to me again why drug companies get to advertise on TV and radio.

George H.

We use the Kaiser health plan, which is a genuine HMO, not insurance. For a fixed fee, they do everything. The doctors are all salaried. If I have a serious problem, I can generally get in there the same day.

Last time I saw my doctor, she checked and decided that I should have tetanus and shingles shots. Got them right down the hall, no waiting. She once wanted me to get a chest x-ray, sent me down to radiology, and they did it immediately. She types in prescriptions on her computer, and on my way out, the pharmacy has them ready in a bag.

Once I went in for a checkup and pointed out an itchy spot on my face. She called in a dermatologist. He said it was a precancerous keratitus, got a spray can of LN2, and zapped it on the spot.

Kaiser is Physician-owned. The Obamacare law made physician-owned health plans illegal. That was a sellout to the insurance industry.

I bet Obama will make a mint after he retires, giving speeches at insurance conventions.

Yes, and not out of touch. Obama is a fascist socialist.

It has done major economic damage to most European countries. Britain's socialized medical system, (and remember Britain is a smaller country) is one of the world's largest employers. Europe is feeling the pinch now, and in a serious way.

Greece's problems were massive debt due to poor economic planning and management. They spent money they didn't have, and never could have raised. Just like in the US.

People in the US "Want the very best, regardless of cost..." and that's foolish.

But the answer to Jim's original post is 'yes'. The problem is that it is not economically viable, that way too many were exempted from the rule that they must pay (entire states, and peoples...) was/is totally corrupt and unrealistic.

Same here, we have Kaiser. They are very efficient. But definitely not their billing department. They made numerous errors, always in their favor, and it took a great dose of persistence on my side to get charges reversed. Only to have them pop up again, and me calling again. A frustrating waste of time, and nearly every time your are transferred you have to spell out all your ID. Again. Transparency is an issue there, too. They have a "sample list" of charges for precedures and some of ours weren't on there. So I asked whether I can have a complete list. The answer was "No" ...

Another downside is that you must buy at the company store. No out-of-company procedures allowed except in emergencies. They do, however, electronically transfer a prescription to a local drug store with the understanding that you'll then have to pay out of pocket. This is nice because I don't want to drive an hour just to save $25, like after a tick bite or a somewhat gone out of control poison oak rash.

When I asked whether our plans will continue after Obamacare kicks in the Kaiser representative said "No clue, nobody knows that". This is just great. So here I have a well-oiled self-employment going and there is a serious chance that the bureacrats throw a major wrench in there.

Why can't the elections be tomorrow? :-)

We had Kaiser at one time, but were glad to drop it. The biggest reason was going to the dermatologist. I have a lot of skin tags and small moles that I would like to remove, but these were all considered as not covered by Kaiser, and they charged big bucks to remove them. I know basically have a major medical plan, and just pay for such things out of pocket. I am saving over half of what Kaiser would have cost!

Charlie

Hmm, interesting. I assume it's a plan that only covers catastrophic stuff. Got a link? Or some info I could find it with? If Obamacare causes our existing plan to implode I'll need an alternative.

I have no problem paying out of pocket for regular medical care. Neither would a high deductible be an issue. We have an HSA for all that.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The mandate idea came from the Republicans, and was added to appease them, since they kept hollering that Obama is a "socialist" (since he wanted a public option). According to Mussolini (who, one would think, was an expert on the matter), fascism is corporatism. The Republican-authored mandate is not a public option and, in fact, directly benefits insurance corporations, and therefore is corporatist in nature.

The evidence indicates that your usage of the term "fascist" is incorrect.

The evidence would indicate that your head is fat. ...Jim Thompson

Robert Macy wrote in news:aeb5d607-5b1a-4e03- snipped-for-privacy@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

Exactly. By law, a corporation is *required* to earn profitrs for its investors. But the law puts no cap on either the profits, cites no profit- to-payout ratio, and is silent regarding executive salaries, and allows CEOs to be part of one another's Boards of Directors - wherein they keep voting for one another to receive larger salaries.

As long as human life is treated as nothing more than just another leverageable commodity, like pork bellies or orange juice, then health-care costs will continue to outstrip the ability of the majority of people to pay those costs; additionally, that majority will only widen, not shirnk.

Exactly. You've probably seent he statistic that 30% of a physician's overhead is directly due to the time and cost of dealing with insurance companies. That's why many physicians will charge far less if a patient is paying cash - especially since they need to overcharge the insurance companies just to cover their actual costs, since the ICs only pay about

I remember when physicians were paid in cash, or payment schedules were set up, and insurance was only for whatwas called "Major Medical", i.e., hospitalization due to a car accident or severe illness or so on. Then Nixon shoved the whole HMO thing down our throats - and so many people have grown up with that system that now, there is sort of a "divine right of insurance companies" (as opposed to kings) that seems to have taken hold.

Give it a couple years. When there is a profit to be had, someone will find a way to insinuate a scheme into the system.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

What erudition, what eloquence, what logic!

Emphasis being on "what".

Back to lurking...

Heven forbid; it is an UN-FUNDED *MANDATE* just like all of the wild BS that comes from clueless politicians.