It’s not on the table in Congress right now, but columnist Ross Douthat supports the government providing universal catastrophic health insurance while maintaining a free-market system for non-catastrophic care. Doing so, he wrote, “would marry a central conservative insight — that we’ll never control spending so long as Americans are insulated from the true price of their medical care — to the admirable liberal premise that nobody should go bankrupt paying for lifesaving treatment.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
37 Comments
Good idea. Also health insurance needs to be separated from the employees’ employers.
Here’s the way this works:
Democrats will add more bells and whistles to provide more free cheese. They will complicate the government takeover and regulation of the healthcare industry and thereby destroy it.
So, yes, another “feel good” idea of what government should DO for the people will be an addition to this costly and controlling legislation.
Of course, the “true cost” is being paid already (that’s why it is true). It is a figment of the socialist imagination that government will provide it “cheaper” and more efficiently for everyone.
Somebody always has to pay for free.
Yeah somebody always has to pay for some to be rich too.
Give us a lotta more of the rich pay for what they have done to the poor.
American_Way: This “out of control rising costs” thing is unique (almost)to American medicine. Other jurisdictions have a better handle on their costs by reason of central reporting procedures that more readiy identifies waste, something private entrprise is loath to do. No hospital or clinic is going to report long wait lines or poor outcomes thing just don’t work that way….you never knock your product. I noted posts about health care taking a bigger piece of the pie elsewhere and that is true, but the pie is smaller due to paying down variables like national debts, the demographics of less crime/justice/indicents dampening costs arising from an older population etc., while the actual medical bucks spent have remained about the same over a 5-10 year span. I accept that there is an axiom that before you can manage anything you must be able to measure it and unfortunately there is no yardstick in place with our present system of insurance/pharma/healthcare to do that. So we’ll watch premium go up, coverage go down and wonder (or defame and ridicule) why universal coverage provides such excellent care while spending much, much less of their GDP to do so. There is no free enterprise health care anymore, the American market has been cornered.
Reform needs to have a public option. Insurance companies should have to deal with some compitition for a change. I’d bet that a public option would indeed reduce health care costs.
Republicans think that compitition is a good thing.
If insurance companies are doing such a great job, why do they need an exemption from anti-trust laws?
Provide for catastrophic insurance and competive rates across state lines.
There should be an Internet ‘GEICO’ type of health insurance allowed with competitive rates.
BlueJay
Posted October 20, 2009 at 7:10 am | Permalink
Yeah somebody always has to pay for some to be rich too.
Give us a lotta more of the rich pay for what they have done to the poor.
—————-
And BJ tell us what you have paid for the rich to be rich.
And the proposal is not “middle ground”.
It’s more. It’s in addition to…..
XXX I think with you that insurance companies should have competition also but the playing field has to be even. Putting private insurance against a government run option would be like fielding an 8 man team (private ins) against an 11 man squad (gov financed option).
By thinking this premise to be false we are setting insurance cos up to become extinct. Many options are available without the drastic surgery the dems are advocating. Form large pools. Open up state lines. Really tackle frivolous lawsuit reform. Attack fraud when it is revealed.
These are just a view that I have advocated since day one. None of these have happened. They could be done right now, today and start the savings now. Why not?
The way this bill is being structured the young and healthy will be expected to carry the load for the chronically ill and older citizens. It just won’t happen.
If I am young and healthy and the gov tells me I have to carrying health ins or be fined. I look at the cost of carry said ins and find it is in the five to six thousand range or even higher and I look at he $750 fine for not carrying it – I’ll take the fine. Then who will pay. Not the BJs of the world for sure. They are just standing there with a hand out. But make no mistake someone will pay. Odds are good it will be you and me and the already overburdened working middleclass.
If Insurance Companies are so evil, why do 85% of Americans choose to have health insurance?
The fact that everyone wants health insurance, and their idea of what good health insurance is is currently provided by private insurance companies, then private insurance companies are doing exactly what everyone wants them to do.
The problem then is not with health insurance companies, the “problem” is that a few people in Congress want to give insurance to those who are not interested in paying for it.
This is of course not a problem, it is a opportunity for soicalists who control Congress to set up a plan that through incremental tweaks will eventually control the quality, cost and scope or health care for every American.
Duh.
Phinatic asks, “if insurance companies are so evil, why do 85 percent of Americans choose to have health insurance.”
Because they literally can’t live without it. Duh.
It’s the only way to protect oneself from catastrophic financial ruin, although all too often even insurance is not enough.
Phinatic asks, “if insurance companies are so evil, why do 85 percent of Americans choose to have health insurance.”
Because they literally can’t live without it. Duh.
So the 15% who do not have it are literally not living?
Interesting, I did not read the fine print in that statistic.
“and I look at he $750 fine for not carrying it – I’ll take the fine.”
What fine? (actually called an ”Excise Tax” in the proposed legislation) I am still trying to follow all the exceptions and reductions to the “fine” contained in the Senate Mark.
Spattered throughout the 223 page document are exceptions, reductions, cost-shares, and tax deductions (payable in advance to providers) , and tax credits and exemptions for individuals between 300-400 percent of Federal Poverty Level ( FPL) and Modified Adjusted Gross Incomes (MAGI).
I’m not so sure young people, or the Bluejays of the world will really pay ANYthing.
Because I respect the posters opinions, I’d be interested to hear okobserver’s observations or anyone elses after reading the proposed legislation.
Do poor people really pay “a fine”?
Chairman’s Mark:
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf
And now you can also read this recently released proposed bill from the senate. Look for key words Federal Poverty Level or Adjusted Gross Income.
1502 page Senate Finance Committee reform bill (19 Oct 2009)
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
Roughly 85% of Americans currently have health insurance.
The remaining 15% of Americans are dead, because you can’t live without it.
Do I have this correct?
So if we count only the living Americans (those with health insurance), we have 100% insured, de facto universal coverage.
What exactly do the Democrats hope to accomplish with the health care bill again?
okobserver
Posted October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink
XXX I think with you that insurance companies should have competition also but the playing field has to be even. Putting private insurance against a government run option would be like fielding an 8 man team (private ins) against an 11 man squad (gov financed option).
________________________________
Okobserver, I keep hearing that government is too inefficient to run a healthcare program. I’d think that if that’s the case, private insurance would be able to compete.
A question, dear lady:
If competition is such a good thing, why are insurance companies exempt from anti-trust laws?
okobserver
Posted October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am | Permalink
XXX I think with you that insurance companies should have competition also but the playing field has to be even. Putting private insurance against a government run option would be like fielding an 8 man team (private ins) against an 11 man squad (gov financed option).
==============================================
Oh no! The Libs definition of Competition is to have Government Subsidized by Taxpayer Health Insurance, offerred at a cheaper price because it’s subsidized.
That will drive Private Insurance out of the market because of the Subsidies, but then, that is the goal of the Libs – Destroy Private Enterprise.
BTW, anyone know what ObamaCare will Cover?
What will it exclude?
What’s the deductible?
What’s the premium cost?
Can you choose your doctors?
Can you choose your hospitals?
Quality? Any quality guarantees?
Any service level standards for Waiting Time to see a doctor?
Rationing, Will Obamacare be rationed like the H1N1 vaccine with shortages everywhere?
Just wondering. It seems Libs don’t care about the details, as long as Obamacare is Free, nothing else matters.
Most bankruptcies are medical related by people with health insurance.
JimJohnson
Posted October 20, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
Oh no! The Libs definition of Competition is to have Government Subsidized by Taxpayer Health Insurance, offerred at a cheaper price because it’s subsidized.
That will drive Private Insurance out of the market because of the Subsidies, but then, that is the goal of the Libs – Destroy Private Enterprise.
____________________________
So Jim, cheerleader that you are for the insurance industry and “Private Enterprise”, can you tell me why insurance companies need an exemption from anti-trust laws? Why can’t insurance companies compete on a level playing field?
LonnythePlumber
Posted October 20, 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Most bankruptcies are medical related by people with health insurance.
=============================
1. Prove it.
2. So what?
XXX
Posted October 20, 2009 at 11:36 am | Permalink
JimJohnson
Posted October 20, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
Oh no! The Libs definition of Competition is to have Government Subsidized by Taxpayer Health Insurance, offerred at a cheaper price because it’s subsidized.
That will drive Private Insurance out of the market because of the Subsidies, but then, that is the goal of the Libs – Destroy Private Enterprise.
____________________________
So Jim, cheerleader that you are for the insurance industry and “Private Enterprise”, can you tell me why insurance companies need an exemption from anti-trust laws? Why can’t insurance companies compete on a level playing field?
==================================
They don’t.
I’ve always advocated enforcement of Sherman Anti-trust laws.
The catastrophic coverage is certainly a laudable and achievable goal. That can easily be achieved through choice rather than force. End the government regulations that mandate coverage and let the people choose how much coverage they want.
Enforce anti-trust laws.
Allow insurance companies to compete in all 50 states.
Allow insurance companies to offer flexibility in their plans to include options like a Catastrophic Policy.
Let’s get some options available like you have for auto insurance – shop around several health insurance companies, pick the coverages, and deductibles you want, and see how the premium costs go down.
Go ahead and require insurance companies to insure you even with pre-conditions and/or bad credit – but understand everyone’s premiums will be impacted upwardly, which will offset somewhat by having more coverage options and more competition.
If given the choice, I’d pick the catastropic plan, paying say the first $2,500 per person out of pocket, with 80/20 after that, up to an annual oout-of-pocket limit of $5,000 per person.
Such a plan eliminates the Runny Nose visits to the doctor, while providing coverage for the big stuff.
“let the people choose how much coverage they want.”
I already have a catastrophic limit on my present health insurance policy. Most policies have limits, don’t they?
American_Way,
Policies do generally have limits. The question is how were those limits determined:
Did you ask for a certain amount of coverage?
Simply choose amongst menu options?
Have a third-party (employer/government) choose the amount?
If the system really had choice you should be able to find coverage for whatever amount you deem you need. The free choice would come with bearing the cost of that choice.
300K per event.
American_Way
Posted October 20, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
300K per event.
_____________________
I pray that you never need a pacemaker.
Why? (but thank-you)
I have the 300K….
BTW, I provided links to both Senate democrat plans above.
Just in case anyone of you want to actually read and discuss what’s in the proposals.
American_Way
Posted October 20, 2009 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
Why? (but thank-you)
I have the 300K….
___________________________________
By chance, I heard a story about that last week. Apparently there were some complications (nothing real major). The costs were very close to your 300K.
Kansas health ins. only going up by 5 to 10% this yr. in Ks., and we like it!
Well, we’ll be paying more in taxes for catastrophic coverage, and you can bet your bippy that the insurance companies won’t be lowering their rates (since they do a crackerjack job of avoiding claims for catastrophies already), so where is this savings we’re supposed to get?
In his article last Sunday Roberts didn’t have any real proposals to confine cost increases, he wants the bells and whistles, but let the ins. friends just raise rates to protect their profit margins.
“Kansas health ins. only going up by 5 to 10% this yr”
Mine is going up 7%. Plus 15 companies are withdrawing from those offered by my company. I suspect they are preparing their way for HC Reform…although I cannot figure out how and why exactly.
7% is high. Inflation is less than zero. But retirees are going to get a bonus from Obama “just because”, so I guess insurance companies can raise our rates too.
They must be doing the old raise the rates before dems control them routine. No doubt with Roberts blessing.
I’m tired of the ridiculous arguments. We just need to go to single payer and get it over with.