Grover Norquist advocates power to the people

[Xavier_Onassis]

When there is only one choice what is there to drive the prices down?

A monopoly can charge anything up to the maximum that can be paid , so why should it minimise?

================================================
The government is not the same as a corporation. A US healthcare corporation will have the goal of maximizing profits.
A government run healthcare system will have the stated goal of maximizing healthcare.

No country pays more per capita for healthcare than the US, which has no standard healthcare.

The VA and other government-run healthcare entities provide health care for less per patient than for-profit companies, like Humana.

[BT]

The VA and other government-run healthcare entities provide health care for less per patient than for-profit companies, like Humana.

That must explain the barrage of articles about what a poor job they do for our returning soldiers.

or not.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That must explain the barrage of articles about what a poor job they do for our returning soldiers.

or not.

======================================

That is essentially not very well thought through as a valid critique.

When they do a good job, it is not likely to make the papers, because that is not something that makes for a good story, unless they break a marathon record bouncing to victory on their prosthetic l;egs.

When Humana screws up, it doesn't make the papers.

Humana is a frequent advertiser.
The VA isn't.

When the VA screws up, it gets made public, and the govt generally does something. If some of the VA were run by Humana, then you'd have apples and apples to compare.

[BT]

The claim was that orgs like the VA deliver health services at a cheaper price. And that may be true. They do have efficiencies. But then again there isn't a month that goes by that we don't see articles decrying the deplorable treatment our vets receive at these facilities.

I don't think the articles we see are really about quality of healthcare i think they are stealth antiwar diatribes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think the articles we see are really about quality of healthcare i think they are stealth antiwar diatribes.
------------------------------
I agree that this is often true.

Most veterans get better health care than the hypothetical average resident of the US, because a large number of average Americans have no doctor they can go to.
=======================

I am pretty sure that a similar treatment at a VA hospital is carried out with less aggravation and at a lower expense than at a for-profit HMO.

I do not believe that VA treatments cost more or are of a lower quality due to the VA not having competition. This was Plane's theory.

If one has regular Medicare, one gets hospitalization and doctor visits with no co=pay.
If one has a Medicare Advantage Plan, one gets hospitalization, doctor visits with no co-pay, free Rx coverage for all generic drugs, access to a gym, eye exams and tooth cleanings.

Naturally, I opted for an HMO operated for AARP. More coverage at the same price is a no-brainer.

But the government reimburses the HMO's at a higher rate, even though the individual pays the same premium of $96.40 every month. If private enterprise were more efficient as Plane alleges, the government would pay the same amount.

The salespeople at all these advantage health plans are very good, their materials are voluminous and thorough. But my experience has been that you have to make a LOT of calls before you actually connect with the vision care and gym provisions. It took five calls to find a gym and seven to make an appointment for an eye exam.

Still, that is better than nothing. It gives retired people something to do with their time: wait on hold as a clueless operator tries to find a provider.

[Universe Prince]

Your real argument is that of two competing values (freedom of choice, optimum health-care coverage) you have sacrificed the latter to the former.  You basically chose ideology over pragmatism.  Which is a perfectly legitimate way of thinking, but we might as well be clear as to what it is.

On the contrary, I am not choosing ideology over pragmatism. I don't agree that a mandatory system run by the government is the most practical or the the optimum method of providing health care.

REAL responsibility would be exercised if the average voter recognized that maximising the risk pool and setting up a single payer would be his or her best health-care plan.

But setting up a single-payer system run by the government has not been proven to be the best health care plan.

[Universe Prince]

In this view, all insurance is immoral,

No, not at all. But if you don't know the difference between voluntarily making payments to an insurance company and the government taking taxes by now, there is no point in wasting time explaining it to you again.

So go ahead and find it "problematic on moral ands ethical grounds", but know that what you are really saying is that you , like the  dorky Norquist do not care a damn for anyone but your own selfish selves, because deep down inside, you know it is all about YOU.

No, it is not about me. That you refuse to acknowledge someone can disagree with you and still care about others is a sign of your own self-righteous egotism. Stop blaming me for your short-comings.

[_JS]

The problem is that health insurance as a private business has no moral inclination to see that the patient and doctor's ends are equivalent to their ends as well. In fact, very often the business goals and the medical goals come into conflict and that creates a situation where the system fails the patient.

Technically every American has at least one primary provider. Most people have a primary and secondary provider and quite a few have a primary, secondary, and tertiary provider. Of course that last line (or first line) of defense is you! What healthcare companies call PATIENT payor class. Whatever is not covered by the other providers will fall to you (with exceptions for adjustments and write-offs).

Health insurance companies hire doctors to determine if treatments are necessary or not. These doctors receive incentive bonuses and awards for denying treatments (what are known in the healthcare industry as COB denials). Insurance companies also employ individuals to go over insurance applications, medical histories, and other patient information and find faults. For example, perhaps you did not report a previous medical condition. These individuals are also paid bonuses and awards for denying treatments (what are known as eligibility denials).

It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.

[Universe Prince]

It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.

I know. And I'm not saying that should not change. But I don't agree that a government run system is really the best or most practical solution.

[fatman]

It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.

Isn't this also common practice for Social Security to do when an individual files for SSI disability benefits?  How is that any different than what private insurance companies do?  In a way it's worse, because the government mandates removal of funds from my income to pay for it, and then issues an automatic denial when I first file.  If a private insurance company did that there would be howls of protest.

As I recall, according to friends and relatives, the VA also likes to do this, especially for military disability.  Either that or they misrepresent the percentage of disability.

[Michael Tee]

<<But setting up a single-payer system run by the government has not been proven to be the best health care plan.>>

Not been proven?  It's axiomatic.  It follows from both logic and experience.


<<It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.>>

That is absolutely shocking and there's no need to put up with it.  In Ontario, insurance companies are required by law to settle all claims in good faith.  A few years ago, Pilot Insurance Company was sued here in Ontario for refusing to settle a cottage fire claim when there was no evidence of arson.  They put the family through a living hell, digging for evidence of arson when there was none to be found and nothing to suggest it.  In addition to paying the original claim, the court ordered them to pay $1 million in punitive damages for failure to settle in good faith as required by statute.  Any insurance company that refused claims as SOP would drown in a blizzard of bad-faith lawsuits.  Odds are the government would conduct its own investigation and put them into receivership before most of the bad-faith claims ever reached court. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.


I know. And I'm not saying that should not change.
=======================================================
YOu have no plan, no way, no suggestion for making the insurance companies treat their customers fairly. And you refuse to take, or even threaten to take the one step that would end this problem: cut them out of the loop.

But I don't agree that a government run system is really the best or most practical solution.

But that is not true, and there is ample proof that it is not true.
No one pays more for health care than Americans. Drug companies make a profit in Mexico, France, Spain and Argentina, and still the same drugs they make a profit on there cost up to seven times more in the US.

People live longer in most of the industrialized nations that have single-payer healthcare.
Every one of these countries is a democracy, and people can abolish their government healthcare with a vote whenever that care to do so.
This has never happened. Not once. Never.

Medicare healthcare in the US is optional. it costs $96.40 every three months. Companies make a profit selling advantage health care insurance that takes the place of government provided insurance. But for people that are not eligible for Medicare, insurance costs three times as much, and covers LESS. Decent healthcare could be provided for everyone by removing the most expensive component- the insurance companies and their commissioned salespeople-out of the loop. They contribute nothing and make the lion's share of the profits.

The basic problem in the US is that the Republicans have as one of their most sacred beliefs that government can do nothing well, that government is a problem, that most of government should be abolished. Once in power, they put their corrupt cronies in power and they loot and steal and assure that whatever the government provides is inferior. Essentially, when you elect a Republican to run a government, it is like hiring a corrupt vegetarian to sell you hamburgers, to put foxes in charge of the henhouses.

When these far right clowns were out drumming up money to support their causes, like Ollie North's failed run for the Senate, and such, more money went to the fundraisers than to the cause. Tom DeLay and Phil Gramm quit the government, and now are lobbyists, paid to help their employers loot the government.

[Amianthus]

It is typical for an insurance company to deny a claim the first time outright. In fact, it is rare for them to accept it. That's just SOP.

I don't know what insurance companies you've been dealing with, but in my many years of experience, I've only ever had one claim denied, and that was because the nurse at the doctor's office coded it incorrectly. Every other claim (and that one as well when the nurse refiled the form) has been paid without any delay.

[Universe Prince]

YOu have no plan, no way, no suggestion for making the insurance companies treat their customers fairly. And you refuse to take, or even threaten to take the one step that would end this problem: cut them out of the loop.

How the frak do you know I have no plan? Have you asked me? No. So you do not know. Not sure that I would explain to you anyway since you don't even know the difference between making voluntary payment and having money involuntarily taken away.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How the frak do you know I have no plan? Have you asked me? No. So you do not know. Not sure that I would explain to you anyway since you don't even know the difference between making voluntary payment and having money involuntarily taken away.

================================
Okay, you MAY have a plan, but you failed to mention it, if indeed there was such a plan.


Because it is unhealthy for people to run stop signs, the government taxes to buy them, put them up at intersections, and enforce them with police.

It is also unhealthy for people to be sick. So how is it different for the government to do what it can for everyone to remain healthy and noncontagious?

Do you have a right to have tuberculosis?

I am thinking that no, you don't. The public health of one is required for the public health of the many. I think the Vulcans had a similar policy, and they were quite logical.