ObamaCare…coming soon

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]SDEngineer, very informative study. Thanks for the link. The biggest thing that stands out to me is, we’re in desperate need to modernizing our health care system. A lot of these errors that’s being reported can be fixed if everything is computerized. A lot of the result are pretty similar between countries. We’re doing something right and some things are lacking. I agree we’re not perfect.[/quote]

Very true observation that we’re stuck in the 20th century where most other countries have moved into the 21st as regards medical care, and no doubt bringing us into the 21st century would help some in both improving quality of care and controlling costs.

However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.[/quote]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.[/quote]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.[/quote]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.[/quote]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
However, the study does make one thing crystal clear – a socialized healthcare system will not by its very nature destroy the quality of healthcare in the U.S., despite what the private insurance companies (profits up nearly 500% over the past 10 years, as mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of major players to less than 10 major insurors) are claiming in the mass media. Clearly, socialized medicine is capable of working, and working at a quality level at least as good as what our completly privatized system does today – and at a substantial savings.[/quote]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).[/quote]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).[/quote]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).[/quote]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).

[an]

[quote=SDEngineer]
And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).[/quote]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).

[Author]

Posts