I can tell you've never heard of transubstantiation, miracles, or even the rose that appears on Edgar Allan Poe's grave each year on the anniversary of his death.
I recall a cartoon of a mechanic holding a part from the doctor's BMW and explaining: "There are many things we just do not know about the carburetor."
No...
There's one of the areas that should be addressed imo -- there's no reason self-employed or other individuals shouldn't be allowed to pool w/ others in larger class pools instead of being forced to fight the single-insured battle. Risks/rates should be predicated on overall population bases instead of the current "cherry-picking" of taking the well population and throwing the remainder onto the public dole.
--
And that seems (to have started as a "benefits arms race" when employment rates were high and employers needed advantages to attract/retain better-qualified workers for the professional/skilled exacerbated by the labor unions when employers were flush-enough it was easier to capitulate than fight. Now, chickens have come or are coming home to roost... :(
The corollary to the above is, of course, that the previously mentioned young, well population that chooses the irresponsible action of not having any or adequate insurance should have sufficient penalties extracted in some form to persuade them of the wisdom in changing their behaviors. Not sure precisely what that would be, but the tax code or some other method needs to address the issue of having a large fraction opt out simply because it isn't presently on their list of "wish-fors" instead of the new bike/car/trip/whatever...
--
Personally, I peg the start of the arms race as the advent of Mcare which served to put a floor under the benefits. But other than that, I would say you were spot on.
Phisherman wrote: ...
And there's the typical short-sighted self-serving attitude that is fine until wake up w/ a serious and the rest of us are stuck w/ your costs.
Unless you have a sufficient resources at hand to handle the potential of several 100K to M it's "TheDoofus" personified... :(
Also, one of the primary sources for new physicians here in rural US is from those dissatisfied-enough w/ the Canadian system to immigrate. At present roughly 1/4 of the local hospital professional staff are Canadian nationals; only one of them was a recent graduate at the time came--all the others were experienced but fed up.
--
Hmmm....have to think about that some...certainly M'care inflated costs initially but that it was always for the geriatric crowd I'm not so sure had such an impact on conventional benefits. As noted, I'll have to cogitate some on that as to what role it also played.
\\ My theory is that the conventional benefits people (specifically the unions, but also others) said something like "If I can't have at LEAST the same benefits as Mcare, then I am striking". That put a floor and each successive round of talks made incremental increases. We are still looking for the ceiling.
Fact is, older people do use more than young people. OTOH, they have been paying into the system for many years and should not now be punished for it.
Massachusetts is doing just that. As a worker or student over 18, you must show proof of insurance or be liable for some sort of fine. You won't get a state tax refund if you don't. I don't know how well it is working though. Plenty of people are still uninsured.
Of course, on average, they do. The issue is that presently companies consider every individual individually rather than as a member of a population (whether that population group is entire US, a State, a County, a company, whatever...) unless they happen (essentially by chance) to be a member of an existing group. By doing so they make the odds untenable for the individual or simply refuse coverage entirely. Particularly since it is so easy for an individual to lose the standing through no fault of their own in that group and suddenly have no recourse.
This is ok for them ("them" being the insurers); not so good (as in unacceptable) for the prospective/hoped-for insured.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have rates that are appropriate to the group; only that individuals need to be able to join reasonably-sized and diverse groups. Otherwise, I don't see there really is an alternative but mandated, sponsored single-payer systems for a fair number including a goodly fraction of the problem population that reform is intended to cover. Thus far, afaict, the insurance companies don't want to address that problem effectively and as much as I am against government single-payor systems, there does have to be a way for currently uninsurables or those w/ extremely high premiums beyond any reasonable reach to be able to get into the larger pool somehow. Elset, there will never be coverage for these folks and the problem of cost recovery for the uninsured will continue to eat up the system.
Have specific case in family of self-employed, uninsurable owing to pre-existing conditions even though it is a specific well-contained issue they still won't write coverage for any other condition as well. That just ain't an acceptable solution that apparently on legislation is going to cure. Unfortunately, it appears the fly will be swatted w/ a
30-MT nuclear device, but if the existing system can't generate solutions on its own as it seems unable to do, at least to date... :(--
There should be an option for those who don't want medical care to take a waiver and have their bodies dumped in the landfill when they encounter a serious accident or illness (renal failure, serious burns, ALS, MS, auto accidents, etc.). Them that wants "full coverage" should expect to pay for a plan of full coverage for all.
I'd like to take a survey of everyone who is not self employed, working in a job that has Workers Compensation. How many people do they know who have cheated the system? How many of them have turned in a cheat? They are no different than pickpockets and shoplifters.
Have to actually read the legislation/requirements but doesn't sound as though that would be the way, superficially. In particular, doesn't sound as though the consequences are of any serious import or couldn't be worked around so easily as to be of no consequence.
--
ISTR employer-paid health plans gained most of their modern traction as an end-run around WWII wage controls? Since everybody paid the same, and the supply of skilled available workers was choked off by the draft, the only way a company could get more people was by ramping up the bennies?
-- aem sends...
Wonder what the numbers look like when adjusted for age of the patient at first diagnosis. Saw in the papers a year or so back where AMA is now saying if an 80 YO is diagnosed, no point in treating, because in all odds he will die of something else before he becomes symptomatic.
-- aem sends...
I hope that before any healthcare legislation gets voted on that people will stop spreading the insane hysteria about killing granny and INFORM THEMSELVES, Invite your family doc over for a barbecue. Take a tour of a nursing home, have a chat with some of the nurses - not the DON - and find out what an incredible waste of money is going on. There is EASILY enough money in current costs to pay for good healthcare coverage for everyone.
Try to remember that some corporations are vitally important, that their profits furnish us with new and effective treatments. Anyone remember the days before polio vaccine? Before antibiotics? Before pacemakers? Before joint implants?
Every damn Walgreens pharmacy has a CVS across the street from it. How do they do it?
Nursing home chains are responsible, by law, to their shareholders. They operate to cheat patients out of any possible "extras", to minimize costs, to furnish goods with a profit. They build new homes, furnish them with expensive looking stuff that will reek of urine.
Time for folks to be creative - to start small co-ops to care for a few of their spouses or parents, to volunteer to provide care, to share housing among a few elders who can help themselves.....there are lots of ways for baby boomers to provide for themselves if there is family and community support wise and informed enough to try something new.
Not just 80-year olds.
For just about anybody with prostate cancer, the first regimen is "watchful waiting." Most prostate cancers are extremely slow growing and usually do not metastasize.
Yep. My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming and gripped with fear like the passengers in his car.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.