What would YOU do to improve healthcare?

[BlueStateSaint]

No healthcare reform without tort reform.  Any plan without that is DOA, IMHO.

Seeing that this echoes what Tx said, I'll say, "What the two of you said."

[formerlurker]

I can't disagree with you more...pre-existing conditions SHOULD be included.  If I am a cancer survivor, I'm considered to have a pre-existing condition....if I have a recurrence in 2 years...then my medical care should not be covered...? B.S.
That is the difference between HMO and PPO in most states...an HMO covers all pre-existing conditions where PPO's do not.  The latter is more expensive too....

I agree with you 100%, the biggest pre-existing condition denial used to be pregnancy -- find out you are pregnant, you get laid off, good luck finding another job right away but if you do  then no coverage.    That went away with hard mandates for pregnancy coverage, and protections from lay offs, etc.      

Your example is what happens too frequently now.   Pre-existing condition denials are a serious problem.

[franksolich]

I agree with you 100%, the biggest pre-existing condition denial used to be pregnancy -- find out you are pregnant, you get laid off, good luck finding another job right away but if you do  then no coverage.    That went away with hard mandates for pregnancy coverage, and protections from lay offs, etc.      

Your example is what happens too frequently now.   Pre-existing condition denials are a serious problem.

Well now, it was late last night when I posted.

As for "pre-existing conditions," I think we're talking oranges and tangerines here.

The definition of "pre-existing conditions."

Close, but not quite the same.

I'll get back to this tonight to explain myself better; it's a busy day in real life.

[IassaFTots]

Pre-existing conditions.  This might help.  Not really the source I would have wanted, but on a quick look this came up, and this is a standard definition.

If you get your insurance coverage through your job, federal law governing pre-existing conditions applies. Your insurer will be permitted to "look-back" to see if you received any medical attention or diagnosis during the six-month period immediately preceding your enrollment. The insurer will use this information to determine what medical conditions you already had when you enrolled. So if you received medical care for a particular condition more than six months prior to enrollment, then that condition is not pre-existing under federal law.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/glossary/g/preex1.htm

[bkg]

I'm torn on the pre-existing contitions conversation. I think it makes sense that an insurance company charge more to comver someone with pre-existing condition that will cost the ins. money. Car ins. companies do it, why shouldn't health insurance companies?

I say this as a person who is on a maintenace drug, who has had Cancer, who's father had kidney transplant, 2 triple bypasses, angeoplasty (sp) and passed away waiting for a heart transplant. Makes no sense to me that I, as a person who is supposed to get a cancer check every 6 months, would have to pay more for insurance than someone who has never had an illness.

As for profit margins... I'm incredibly - INCREDIBLY - sick and tired of people complaining about insurance company profits. As tired as I am about oil company profits or any other successful industry. 5% is about 1/2 the "avg" profit margin. I'm very tired of people saying "well... the industry is sooooo huge that 5% is a ton of money and still too much!!!" BULLSHIT. If the industry is a Trillion dollar industry, the liabilities/risk that the ins company has to manage is $950 BILLION. Please don't sit here an tell me that the other side of teh balance sheet doesn't matter... That's myopic, foolish, and just dumb.

Want to talk about profits? How much does the Gov't make in "profits" off of these highly regulated companies? They make more than the oil companies - WAY more. How  much do they benefit from Insurance company profits? Guess what - by definition of our income tax rules, it's almost as equal as to the insurance company profits. In MN, the corp tax is a combined 45% +-. So if United Health has a profit of $5B, almost $2.5B is going to Fed/state. Seems no one wants to talk about THAT now, eh?

[Deuce]

We have the nest healthcare in the world no need to change it.

Change in the health insurance area needed

How do you define best?

In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.

You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.

[franksolich]

Pre-existing conditions.  This might help.  Not really the source I would have wanted, but on a quick look this came up, and this is a standard definition.
http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/glossary/g/preex1.htm

That's where I made my first mistake; I should have pointed out the diffeence between the usual and customary definition of "pre-existing conditions" as used in regards to insurance, and what I was thinking of, simply the way a person comes into this world, and I was trying to look at it from the latter definition.

Like I said, it was late at night.....

Under the more common definition, I have three "pre-existing conditions;" deafness, a propensity towards WAY too many respiratory ailments, and melanoma.  It's been a very long time ago now, but I have been refused medical insurance on the second one.

And again, I must point out that I am in a different situation than nearly all others here at conservativecave; I am a single male with no spouse or dependents, and so have a greater degree of freedom (my actions affect only myself) than they do; I can take risks no sane person with a spouse and dependents dare take.

As everyone knows, while I am enthusiastic about things such as cochlear implants and other ear-reconstructon for people who once had hearing, but then lost some, or all, of it, I am "thumbs down" on money being spent on the same thngs for people who were born hard of hearing or deaf.

It seems to me there is way too much money spent on trying to correct "mistakes" of nature.  I find no fault, no fault at all, with correcting a cleft palate on an infant, or repairing the hole in the heart of an infant, but I'm talking about something different here; non-life-threatening conditions such as being born blind or deaf or sexual confusion or the wrong color of skin or too big of a nose.

[Deuce]

That's where I made my first mistake; I should have pointed out the diffeence between the usual and customary definition of "pre-existing conditions" as used in regards to insurance, and what I was thinking of, simply the way a person comes into this world, and I was trying to look at it from the latter definition.

Like I said, it was late at night.....

Under the more common definition, I have three "pre-existing conditions;" deafness, a propensity towards WAY too many respiratory ailments, and melanoma.  It's been a very long time ago now, but I have been refused medical insurance on the second one.

And again, I must point out that I am in a different situation than nearly all others here at conservativecave; I am a single male with no spouse or dependents, and so have a greater degree of freedom (my actions affect only myself) than they do; I can take risks no sane person with a spouse and dependents dare take.

As everyone knows, while I am enthusiastic about things such as cochlear implants and other ear-reconstructon for people who once had hearing, but then lost some, or all, of it, I am "thumbs down" on money being spent on the same thngs for people who were born hard of hearing or deaf.

It seems to me there is way too much money spent on trying to correct "mistakes" of nature.  I find no fault, no fault at all, with correcting a cleft palate on an infant, or repairing the hole in the heart of an infant, but I'm talking about something different here; non-life-threatening conditions such as being born blind or deaf or sexual confusion or the wrong color of skin or too big of a nose.

The non-life-threatening conditions you speak of are not covered by health insurance. If an individual wants to "fix" their skin color or nose, they can spend the money to do so. That's not a choice I would deny them.

[MrsSmith]

How do you define best?

In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.

You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.

I hope you realize this is also untrue.  Other nations count so many of their healthcare stats differently, there is really no comparison without infinite details.  Just for one example, in most of the world, an infant born before 22 weeks is considered a miscarriage and there is no attempt to keep that child alive.  In the US, the attempt is made and, if it fails, it is counted under "Infant Mortality."  Mortality of mothers is also counted differently, in the US, any maternal death counts as such until a year after the birth (or abortion, if that fact is known), while most countries stop the count at either 4 or 6 months.  The "worst healthcare" myth is just that...a myth created by comparing apples and oranges.

In point of fact, Canada sends most of their preemies to the US for birth.  This is because the US saves more than Canada, and our hospitals have more Intensive Care nurseries and better trained personnel.

[MrsSmith]

Plumber with shattered arm left horrifically bent out of shape has operation 'cancelled four times'




This is the result of government run healthcare.

[TheSarge]

How do you define best?

You REALLY have to ask that?  Advancements in cancer treatments...disease prevention...rehabilitation...what else would you like me to list?

In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.

Link?

You're right about the insurance - a large part of our problem is the utterly inefficient way we spend money on healthcare. It's not entirely the fault of insurers, it's the way those insurers interact with the rest of the system. I would also argue that health insurance is just as integral to "healthcare" as a doctor is, and if our insurance is bad, by definition our healthcare has problems.

What Liberal website did you steal that crap from?

[TheSarge]

The non-life-threatening conditions you speak of are not covered by health insurance. If an individual wants to "fix" their skin color or nose, they can spend the money to do so. That's not a choice I would deny them.

So you're saying that it should be rhinoplasty...face lifts and boob jobs for everyone?


There's a reason they are called elective surgeries.

What you're advocating is taxpayer subsidized vanity.

[JohnnyReb]

More gun practice for criminals....so they kill each other instead of giving several people a helicopter ride to the hospital and 4 months of unpaid spa treatments.

[Chris_]

In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.

Care to back that up?...other than just your opinion.

Also still waiting for you to back this one up as well:

A few things are clear:

1) The status quo is unsustainable. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and insurance profits keep going up. We're the ones getting hurt.

I have a feeling it's gonna be a loooong wait.

[Deuce]

So you're saying that it should be rhinoplasty...face lifts and boob jobs for everyone?


There's a reason they are called elective surgeries.

What you're advocating is taxpayer subsidized vanity.

That's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you dense? They can spend their own money on it. Health insurance doesn't cover it.

[TheSarge]

That's exactly the opposite of what I said. Are you dense? They can spend their own money on it. Health insurance doesn't cover it.

Your lack of clarity isn't my problem.

[Deuce]

Care to back that up?...other than just your opinion.

Also still waiting for you to back this one up as well:

I have a feeling it's gonna be a loooong wait.

I already linked this about rising costs.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Here's a little graph that compares cost increases to wage increases
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591/F2

We spend way, way more than any other country.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Here's a huge pdf full of pretty graphs, mostly about how much we spend and what we get for it.

As far as our healthcare outcomes, for one we have millions of people uninsured. Lack of access is surely a way to measure?

Somewhere I had a nice neat blog page full of graphs that compared stats on: life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality amenable to healthcare, difficulty accessing care, doctors per-capita, and even waiting times. We were very low on the rankings on all of them. (yes, even in waiting times, though we do beat Canada and the UK) I can't find it at the moment, but I'll look more tomorrow.

Why do I consider our health insurance industry to be so inefficient? We have dozens of companies with hundreds of plans, each having to tailor themselves individually to 50 different states worth of regulations. Every hospital or doctor's office has to negotiate rates with each of these companies. Pharmaceutical companies need to negotiate rates with each of these companies. This creates administrative redundancy that wastes a lot of money.

[Lacarnut]

How do you define best?

In just about any way of measuring, we actually have some of the *worst* healthcare when ranked against modern nations.

I define best as more people COME to this country for operations/treatment than leave to have it done in other countries. We have the best hospitals, the best doctors, the best equipment, the best R & R and the best survival rate for heart disease and cancer than any EU countries. It cost money to have the best.

There is no right to own a house, a car, a cell phone or health insurance. This cr@p about everyone deserves health insurance is BS. In fact, I don't want to pay for those above mentioned items. The government needs to stay out of health care. They will just make it worse.   

[Mustang]

1)  Shut down the medicare/medicaid system immediately.

I agree medicaid should be shutdown, but not medicare. Medicaid is nothing more than welfare, period. It is something that mostly poor immigrants collect who have never put anything into the system. You don't need to qualify for it, unlike medicare, all you need to be is poor.  

Medicare is legit because its only available to people who are disabled and the elderly. And you have to wait for one year before you get it after your disabled and then you still have to pay for it. Medicare is not welfare, not by a long shot. It's an extension for people who have put into the social security system. Medicare is legit because it goes to people who need healthcare the most, the disabled and the elderly.

--------------------------------------------
My solution with healthcare?

First of all, I think the 30-40 million uninsured is inaccurate. I believe it is much more than that, not including illegal aliens.
I really don't have a clue as how to fix this problem. Perhaps tort reform and allowing insurance companies to sell policies over state lines would solve a great portion of the problem.

The people who need health insurance the most are people who make too much money to qualify for free healthcare and free drug assistance through various channels, but too little to afford buying health insurance on their own because their employer doesn't cover it.
Unfortunately there is no good solution for these people. If you make a public option program for these people, you burden tax payers and lower quality of health care--If you force businesses to give insurance to people, you are burdening the businesses with a penalty for employing a full time worker.

[Chris_]

I already linked this about rising costs.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

You said:

Healthcare costs are skyrocketing

Your “source” regarding that is titled:

Health Insurance Costs

…and…

national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage

Not the same thing.  Try again.

Here's a little graph that compares cost increases to wage increases
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591/F2

Yeah, that’s purdy.  No data to back it up.  Useless.

We spend way, way more than any other country.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Here's a huge pdf full of pretty graphs, mostly about how much we spend and what we get for it.

"Healthcare spending"....no definition given.  Could be many, many things.

“Congressional Research Service”….who are they?

In 1914, Congress passed legislation to establish a separate department within the Library of Congress. President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law, and CRS, then called the Legislative Reference Service, was born to serve the legislative needs of the Congress.
With the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Congress renamed the agency the Congressional Research Service and significantly expanded its statutory obligations. The services provided today by CRS are a direct result of congressional directives and guidance.

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html
Nope, no bias there, but they do try to claim otherwise.  Kinda a hard to do when you’re taking orders from a liberal controlled Congress.

As far as our healthcare outcomes, for one we have millions of people uninsured. Lack of access is surely a way to measure?

Lack of access???  Really???  Those millions of people must be dying in the streets of other cities.  Haven’t seen any here.

Somewhere I had a nice neat blog page full of graphs that compared stats on: life expectancy, infant mortality, mortality amenable to healthcare, difficulty accessing care, doctors per-capita, and even waiting times. We were very low on the rankings on all of them. (yes, even in waiting times, though we do beat Canada and the UK) I can't find it at the moment, but I'll look more tomorrow.

Now there ya go.  If it’s in a blog somewhere, it’s gotta be reliable.

Why do I consider our health insurance industry to be so inefficient? We have dozens of companies with hundreds of plans, each having to tailor themselves individually to 50 different states worth of regulations. Every hospital or doctor's office has to negotiate rates with each of these companies. Pharmaceutical companies need to negotiate rates with each of these companies. This creates administrative redundancy that wastes a lot of money.

I was really hoping for some reliable, unbiased resources….you know, with data that backs up the conclusions instead conclusions being made and “research” cooked until in is “supported”.

Don’t even try to tell us that the government will improve efficiency and quality.  Just look at how well they do with the public school system.

[Deuce]

I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.

Their job is to regulate harmful practices.

How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs? Why do you think premiums go up?

I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?

[Chris_]

I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.

Their job is to regulate harmful practices.

Say what?

How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs?

Didn't say that.

Why do you think premiums go up?

How much time you got?

I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?

[Chris_]

I agree medicaid should be shutdown, but not medicare. Medicaid is nothing more than welfare, period. It is something that mostly poor immigrants collect who have never put anything into the system. You don't need to qualify for it, unlike medicare, all you need to be is poor. 

Medicare is legit because its only available to people who are disabled and the elderly. And you have to wait for one year before you get it after your disabled and then you still have to pay for it. Medicare is not welfare, not by a long shot. It's an extension for people who have put into the social security system. Medicare is legit because it goes to people who need healthcare the most, the disabled and the elderly.

My basic premise is that government - ESPECIALLY the federal level - needs to be gotten the hell out of the Health Insurance industry.  (Hell, it needs to be gotten out of EVERY industry, but then we're only talking about health insurance here.)

 Medicare has been running in the red for years, and if we don't shut the Ponzi scheme down, it WILL bankrupt us in real short order (2012-2014 based upon estimates made BEFORE the Ø-spending spree) and shut US down.  Who the hell cuts out the one tumor on your reproductive organ (Medicaid) but leaves the tumor on their lungs because, "it's legit"?  Cut them off, and irradiate the area, or either one, or both together will KILL you.

[bkg]

I wouldn't try and tell you that because I don't think the government runs anything particularly efficiently.

Their job is to regulate harmful practices.

How could you consider health insurance costs to not be part of healthcare costs? Why do you think premiums go up?

I'll scare up some better sources later tonight. What would you consider to be reliable? Maybe you have some sources that conflict with what I gave?

REALLY? Show me where in COTUS that it states that Gov'ts job is to "regulate Harmful Practices."

[bkg]

Had a talk with my dentist this morning. For those of you who may believe that gov't isn't the cause of our healtcare "crisis," please listen to this.

My dentist has to pay 2% of gross revenue as a "tax" to help pay for those on Medical Assistance because he provides healthcare for his employees.
He is also forced to see a certain number of patients on MA.
A standard cleaning is $84 and takes about an hour.
MA pays $18.

That doesn't even cover the cost of labor for his hygenist.