[quote=ocrenter]
But isn’t this the main idea behind all insurance scheme? Essentially the majority of non-users or minimal users are subsidizing the “superusers”. Aka shared risk. That is correct, but the term “superuser” has negative connotations. You can be the same risk profile as someone else but through misfortune be a so-called “superuser.” I’m not a scientist, but I believe genome mapping hasn’t quite developed to the stage where the risk of all diseases can be predetermined. And then there’s accidents.
…doctors are incentivized to recommend the MOST. Therefore, a twisted knee turns into a MRI and a visit to the orthopedic specialist. Which ultimately drive up the cost. Doctors should be rewarded for preventive practices and results thereof. It has proven effective in other systems.
This system will therefore collapse on it’s own weight IF superusers are included. This is why all medical insurance companies work so hard to remove superusers from their system. I think it fair to say that remains to be seen. Presumably, actuarial calculations took that into account.
…[I]F you are unfortunate enough to become a superuser, plan on filing for BK even if you have insurance.
Obamacare at least tries to rectify this by forcing acceptance of the superusers back into the system, but he needed the nonusers like your son to buy into the program as well, otherwise, like I said before, the systems was already barely afloat and would collapse if they take in those that need the most care. Bankruptcy insurance seems a fitting description of some insurance policies. Each generation will be dependent on the next generation so everything evens out. Isn’t social security funded similarly?
We have two options, full blown socialist model of single payer. You get the doctors out of the game of incentives for doing more for more profit. They are the main cost drivers under the current system. Remember, the same doctor without the kickback from his radiologist and orthopedic buddies will likely just recommend some icing and course of high dose ibuprofen for that twisted knee instead of the MRI and a visit to orthopedics. The single payer has the power of monopoly to set how much they are willing to pay for supplies and drugs, cost can then come down..with the cost controlled, we can take care of our superusers. I don’t agree with the ideological frameworks being used but agree in principle with the costs and incentives argument.
Our other option is a fully capitalistic model. The government completely get out of the game of health care. Superusers should just move out of the country and if you can’t pay, you are refused service, period. This model does work, see China and Mexico and Thailand. The healthcare cost for these countries are very minimal.
But that’s really the two choices we got, anything in between really is just a big FAIL. I’m guessing the second option is a rhetorical suggestion.
Drug companies, training, medical equipment companies, bureaucracy, duplication, litigation, and research must also contribute significantly to the cost of insurance. This is not just about insurance. The core of the problem is costs, so why not apply reductionist principles and surgically remove the tumor as opposed to applying palliatives. In other words, treat the disease, not the symptoms.
