Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:14 |
el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:56an | affordable public option would be great and would help me. I know plenty of people who's employer does not offer health insurance and they have the same problem i do. Paying nearly $5k a year and rarely using it (thankfully) is ridiculous. whats more ridiculous is that if i needed a major operation it would NOT be covered.
no one here is looking for something for nothing, other than the insurance companies. i mean how is paying 5k a year, not using insurance, and getting nothing back fair?
|
It's the people that pay into insurance and don't use it that make it somewhat available/affordable for the people that get out of it much more than they pay into it. That's the trick...
Have you ever been in a hospital overnight and seen the bill?!?!?!? Someone's paying for it... That's where the costs need to come down IMO... Fix the problem at the source... don't just shuffle the money around! There's GOT to be a better way to fix this problem than gov't run health insurance.
|
It's not just the people 'underutilizing' their heath insurance that are paying for the others, it's also the uninsured! The health insurance companies are out to make profit - not to keep you healthy (except as far as needed to get customers in the first place). They negotiate contract rates for things with the providers. The providers' 'listed' rates are higher still, and this is what would get charged to those who are uninsured. The insurance companies never pay 'list' price.
Also, if you're getting too 'expensive' for the insurer, they're going to find anyway they can to dump you, or not cover things.
Bottom line, if we do have health insurance companies, they should be nonprofit! Allowing for-profit health care was the big mistake. Simply making existing health insurance more 'affordable' doesn't fix a thing.
It also needs to be a complete system - not separate smaller systems. although that still would allow separate companies.
And to those who worry about 'government bureaucrats' deciding what doctors they can see, what procedures they can get... I see it as being better than the existing system where a private for-profit company's accountants/actuaries decide (i.e. the people writing the insurance policy terms/coverages). You would still have to remove the 'for-profit' element from government (i.e. corporate contributions). Anyone who thinks they can go see whatever doctor they like, and that their doctor has free range over what can and should be done for you, is either deluding themselves, or has lots and lots of money (or maybe they're employed by Microsoft).