|
Post by redwolf on Jan 5, 2008 18:34:32 GMT -6
From the 1/3/08 NY Times Editorial page: No Insurance, Poor Health "The case for providing health coverage for all Americans got even more compelling in the past week when two new studies presented the most comprehensive evidence yet that the lack of health insurance is seriously harmful to a patient’s health. The studies found that uninsured people suffer significantly worse outcomes from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer than those who have coverage."www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/opinion/03thu3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 5, 2008 19:59:32 GMT -6
I've been researching actual costs in healthcare to figure out how much it would actually cost to insure everyone, or at least almost everyone.
My 1st idea was to offer individuals the option of buying into Medicare. Initially, this seemed like a reasonable option--based on an approximately $4,000-$4,500/year average cost to Medicare per patient. However, this only covered Part B—Outpatient care only.
It appears like Part A, the hospital/inpatient part of Medicare, costs at least another $4,500. Thus, the total cost for a patient wishing to buy-in would be at least $8,500. And this does not include drug coverage.
If the government paid this amount for 47 million uninsured patients, it would cost about $400 billion.
There a lot of nuances, however, that would reduce the cost. The average age of the newly insured—and thus the average cost—would be lower than for the current Medicare insurees. Most of this cost reduction would come from Part A—the hospital/inpatient part. On average, hospitalization costs for 47 million individuals under 65 is MUCH less than for those over 65. Younger patients rarely require hospitalization for medical problems. Even surgery is usually done on an outpatient basis.
As a result, it would be possible for the government to cover just the hospitalization costs—from the revenue increase from repealing Bush's tax cuts on the top 2%. ($120-$160 billion). At this point, individuals could be offered the Medicare Part A/Hospitalization insurance—if they were willing to pay the cost themselves for Part B. Again, the average annual cost of Part B would be much less for a typical under-65 person than an over-65 person.
If there was a drug plan offered (and paid for by taxpayers), it would have to be very restricted. Fortunately, this is VERY easy to do. A drug plan would restrict drug coverage to only the generic drug in each drug class. Where no generic was available, it would be restricted to the 2 lowest-priced drugs. What would be covered would be determined EXCLUSIVELY by physiciansI've been researching actual costs in healthcare to figure out how much it would actually cost to insure everyone, or at least almost everyone.
As a result, it might possible for the government to cover just the hospitalization costs—simply from the funds resulting from repealing Bush's tax cuts on the top 2%. ($120-$160 billion). At this point, individuals could be offered the Medicare Part A/Hospitalization insurance—if they were willing to pay the cost themselves for Part B. Again, the average annual cost of Part B would be much less for a typical under-65 person than an over-65 person.
If a drug plan was offered (and paid for by taxpayers), it would be restricted exclusively to generics when available. For example, a drug like Lipitor (atorvastatin) would not be covered, as there are generic equivalents (Lovastatin, simvistatin, fluvastatin) When generics are not available, coverage would be restricted to the 2 lowest-priced drugs in a category. What drugs would be covered would be determined EXCLUSIVELY by a committee of physicians--and only those with no connection or financial interest in a Pharmaceutical company.
This would incentivize Pharmaceutical companies to keep prices down on their drugs, as they wouldn't be covered otherwise. Many drugs would not be covered at all, as they have no life-extending benefit (Viagra, for example, which costs over $10/pill).
The goal of this plan is 2-fold. 1)Provide insurance for those not insured 2)To provide competition against private insurers--putting downward pressure on premiums.
There would be no mandated coverage--as this increases DEMAND for insurance--and increases price as a result.
There would be a time-limited pre-existing condition exclusion. For those who do not enroll within a certain period of time, there'd be no coverage for a pre-existing condition for a limited time--6 months to 1 year. For those who signed up immediately, there would be no pre-existing condition exclusion.
This program would be reviewed annually for costs. Coverage would be reduced if incoming revenue for the program was less than costs. Such changes could be as simple as requiring patients to pay 30% of the covered amount, instead of 20% as is currently the case. Some of the least medically necessary procedures could be eliminated.
Most importantly, the program cannot even begin unless there is an already-established source of revenue to fund it. (i.e., roll-back of the tax cuts on the top 2%, increase in taxes on investment income to the same level as wages, an across the board import duty, etc.)
All current proposals sound either bad, or very bad. Giving taxpayers' money to private insurance companies is a very bad idea. Eliminating all private insurance is just as bad. Mandating that Americans must have insurance is not only very bad--it's Corporate fascism. It's totalitarian and un-Constitutional. It's INSANE. It's the government forcing individuals to give their money to Corporate America--in this case, to the Health Insurance Cartel.
Mandated health insurance is a "mandated revenue-stream" for the Health Insurance Cartel. It doesn't "reduce" costs any. It increases premiums by increasing demand. It increases incoming revenue to health insurers, without guaranteeing anything in return.
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Jan 6, 2008 1:06:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Jun 6, 2008 10:26:42 GMT -6
If you speak Pig Latin fluently can you put it down in your resume, as being Bi-lingual.
And if you really want to toss a monkey wrench in the medical and hospitalization care machinery, instead of going to a general medical practioner, go to your local emergency room and whenever your ill -- just like all the illegal aliens do -- making sure to speak only Pig Latin (making sure you don't understand or communicate in English or other alternative language .. or possess an American identification), forcing the hospital to provide a translator for you (at hospital expense).
When the hospital seeks payment or when you complete the necessary forms (with translator input, of course) pretend to be broke and pay only a nominal fee, so they have to apply for reimbursement from the local/county indigent care provider.
It may take a while to get treated but if all those illegal aliens can and do follow this system, why shouldn't you??
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 6, 2008 11:15:49 GMT -6
hey UnLC, that looked like a bit of ambitious work, but seeing as you made that post in January, have you had any other ideas since then?
one thing that came to mind
easier said than done. Anyone with decision making power eventually gets targeted by salesreps. One possibility would be to have a large pool of specialists that get tapped on a rotating basis. Making it impossible for the drug companies to buy everyone out, as well as those physicians that do have pharm stocks from having enough weight to persuade a decision.
|
|