Who told us "socialized medicine" was bad?

Nordberg said:
Damn, are you stupid? I have several Canadians in my family. They bitch about their medical system. people bitch, as you do. Ask them if they would rather have our system, and they are shocked by how stupid that is. Hell no.
Not only would universal healthcare slash bankruptcies, but it would give people peace.
If we had universal healthcare, people could shift jobs without having an uncovered period of time. If you wanted to start a business, you would not have to pay employees' healthcare.
How nice would it be not to worry about healthcare expenses? Your whole family is covered from day one.
Click to expand...
Communism never works, Sybil.

Canadians spend a lot on socialized healthcare and wind up having to see private physicians and often travel to the United States to get their healthcare. Canadians have to worry about the extremely high taxes to pay for the socialized healthcare disaster.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Actually, I want to see the entire system do a re-group.

I think the government should treat students for medical degrees the way they treat military types looking to become officers...like the military academies. Except using normal medical schools.

Pay the tuition; give them a nominal salary same as students at the Academies; and then require that they give service in clinics and hospitals for 6, 8, 10 years before going into private practice if they choose to do so. Even pay off student debts and give what salary would have ben earned to new graduates for the same commitment.

We do not need less "socialized medicine"...we need a hell of a lot more. And we need to improve on the systems now in place.
Click to expand...
Communism never works, Doofan.
 
Nordberg said:
It is capitalism. They are trying to squeeze every drop of profit out of health care. That results in fighting procedures, denying care, and merging and buying up hospitals. It closes lower-profit hospitals like rural, small-town and inner-city hospitals.
Uncontrolled capitalism is cruel
Click to expand...
Communism is not capitalism, Sybil.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I have a different take. Undoing the way a major part of the economy is structured is not going to happen. What we need most is to restructure it in a way that makes it more cost effective.

This starts with a national catastrophic health insurance program. The various insurance companies sell the policies, much like is done with flood insurance. The cost is heavily subsidized through taxes so anyone can get a policy. Participation is all but mandatory. The yearly deductible on this policy is something like $10,000 to $20,000. Yea, that sounds high, but the insurance isn't for routine health care. It is for that once or twice in a lifetime major medical crisis you might have. It covers massive medical costs.

For the rest, we first make all medical / healthcare expenses 100% deductible on taxes. Then we revamp the medical savings account program. Again, participation is strongly encouraged and mandatory if you are receiving any sort of government assistance. Money deposited into such an account is 100% deductible. Withdrawing funds for medical costs remains 100% deductible (no tax on it). There is some fairly high maximum on what you can stuff into one of these accounts per year but no limit on the total amount in it. The accounts can be interest bearing and remain, like a 401K untaxed.

Financial and insurance institutions can offer the plans to all taking their fees out of the funds invested making the accounts free to customers. For those getting any sort of government assistance a minimum balance is to be maintained and funds the government would give you can be diverted to ensure that balance is in place. For example, you're on SNAP and at the end of the year you get EIC on your tax return. Your balance is low so EIC is diverted to your account and deposited there instead.

Since the account is YOUR money, not the government's defrauding this system is only stealing from yourself.

For employers, they can set up similar accounts for their employees. They can get an insurance company, etc., to run their program if they want. Same rules only employers can put up to 100% matching funds up to a maximum per year (TBD) to employee contributions. So, if the account can have say, $5000 max per year put in it the employee puts in $2500 and the employer matches that. The difference is these accounts run on a year-to-year basis, not continuously like the personal ones. Yes, you can have both and are encouraged to.

At the end of each year, the employer accounts have any remaining funds split evenly between employer and employee or based on each's contribution percentage. That is, if the account can have $5000 in it and does with an employer match of 100% the employer and employee each get $2500 or they can roll it over into next year. If the later, the employee doesn't have to make contributions as the account is maxed for the year already. This means for healthy workers that the system becomes self-sustaining after a few years. More money in the employee's and employer's pockets.

Again, the money is YOURS so fraud only is going against yourself.

The whole system is pay-as-you-go. Insurers are now far less involved in the process. Any reasonable medical claim is paid out in full, no deductibles at the service end. That means users have a reason to want to know what the cost of their care will be up front and will shop for the best deals. That will drive costs down because there is market pressure to do so.

Hospital costs will fall because the catastrophic plan catches most of the costs for anyone admitted. Sure, they may still owe $10 to $20 K but if they have the savings accounts much or all of that will be covered up front.

It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the system we have now.
Click to expand...
Communism never works.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I appreciate your view on this, T. A., but in order for any improvement to be made, the "insurance companies" have got to stay out of the mix. The object of corporate America is to make as much profit as possible...and THAT is where the focus of insurance companies will be.

Not sure how we are going to make the change, but getting capitalism out of a majority of healthcare is the way to go. And my preference would be not to do it the way Nifty and I have suggested. That way, way more people who want to be healthcare practitioners and who are capable of it...will be able to do so.

But one way or another...we have got to make massive improvements over what we have now.
Click to expand...
Communism never works, Doofan.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I appreciate your view on this, T. A., but in order for any improvement to be made, the "insurance companies" have got to stay out of the mix. The object of corporate America is to make as much profit as possible...and THAT is where the focus of insurance companies will be.
Click to expand...

Not happening. Too much money, too many jobs, too established to just cut them out of the picture.
Ross Dolan said:
Not sure how we are going to make the change, but getting capitalism out of a majority of healthcare is the way to go. And my preference would be not to do it the way Nifty and I have suggested. That way, way more people who want to be healthcare practitioners and who are capable of it...will be able to do so.

But one way or another...we have got to make massive improvements over what we have now.
Click to expand...

What my proposal does is change almost all health insurance into managed investment accounts. Insurers would simply become financial managers instead. Customers would stop simply paying in with potentially no ROI but instead be saving money and gaining interest on it towards potential need for healthcare in the future.

Instead of pooled risk, risk becomes individual. Sure, those in poor health will be paying in, but once they hit that catastrophic deductible for the year, they're covered by insurance. For the healthy, the system means they can see their healthcare savings build and at some point even get a return on their investment as a reward for being healthy.
 
Just think how much better we could serve people if we did not have to provide a staff to take care of insurance. Every doctor's office is buried by tnsurance forms they have to store and supply a staff to handle. How much would it help our corporations if they did not have that huge expense? It would certainly make us more competitive.
 
Insurance companies have no product, They do not provide health care. They go between the company /patient and the hospital, deciding what they will approve. We all know the more they deny care, the more money they make. They are in the business of determining what the patient can get. Why do they have that right? Our system sucks.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not happening. Too much money, too many jobs, too established to just cut them out of the picture.
Click to expand...

since when is the establishement not happy about laying off thousands?
T. A. Gardner said:
What my proposal does is change almost all health insurance into managed investment accounts. Insurers would simply become financial managers instead. Customers would stop simply paying in with potentially no ROI but instead be saving money and gaining interest on it towards potential need for healthcare in the future.

Instead of pooled risk, risk becomes individual. Sure, those in poor health will be paying in, but once they hit that catastrophic deductible for the year, they're covered by insurance. For the healthy, the system means they can see their healthcare savings build and at some point even get a return on their investment as a reward for being healthy.
Click to expand...
this is idiotic.

thanks.
 
Nordberg said:
Just think how much better we could serve people if we did not have to provide a staff to take care of insurance. Every doctor's office is buried by tnsurance forms they have to store and supply a staff to handle. How much would it help our corporations if they did not have that huge expense? It would certainly make us more competitive.
Click to expand...
Just think how many people would be unemployed. What would you suggest we give them as alternate jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top