• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Put Patients and Doctors Back in Control of Healthcare

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ironically, laws and policies in the 1970's promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from desperate attempts to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs took far too much control away from patients and physicians and gave it to the insurers. This excessive reliance on third-party payers instead removed incentives for insured patients to economize on health care costs, and allowed the problem to snowball. Furthermore, the third-party payer system created a two-tier health care system where people whose employers could afford to offer "Cadillac" plans have access to top quality health care, while others face financial obstacles in obtaining quality health care.
The bill will probably be stalled over and over but word should get out that their is something in congress to restore sanity to health care.

Campaign For Liberty — Put Patients and Doctors Back in Control of Healthcare   | by Ron Paul
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The bill will probably be stalled over and over but word should get out that their is something in congress to restore sanity to health care.

Campaign For Liberty — Put Patients and Doctors Back in Control of Healthcare **| by Ron Paul
To some degree I think he rightly indentifies a problem. HMO's started out pretty well (I had a great one at the UofI early on), but went too far. And note they weren't a government bureaucracy, but a private one. That said, I'm not sure Paul has the solutions quuite right. While I have no objection to puchasing insurace across state lines, there is no certainty this will have a positive effect. As there are reasons why insrance cost more in one state than another, it could have the reverse effect. Nor do tax credits actually give you the money up front enough to assure you can pay for what you need now. Nor does this do anything to change the skewed mindset of the American consummer who wants excess as a rule. We will always have to make decisions about care. And it will always be better for those who can afford more, but what we need are doctors and reasonable patients, average citizens as part of the group that makes these decisions.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
To some degree I think he rightly indentifies a problem. HMO's started out pretty well (I had a great one at the UofI early on), but went too far. And note they weren't a government bureaucracy, but a private one. That said, I'm not sure Paul has the solutions quuite right.
Nonsense, the HMO was created by legislation passed and introduced by the late senator Edward Kennedy. It IS a government created beauracracy no matter who is in charge.
While I have no objection to puchasing insurace across state lines, there is no certainty this will have a positive effect.
False, it relies on competitive forces and necessarily benefits people who have no need for state mandated coverages that spike costs in that area.
As there are reasons why insrance cost more in one state than another, it could have the reverse effect.
Again, garbage. This is exactly why people need more choice, I don't know an easy fix since the jurisdiction falls on the commissioner of insurance for any given state but is a great solution if paired with other common sense reforms.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nonsense, the HMO was created by legislation passed and introduced by the late senator Edward Kennedy. It IS a government created beauracracy no matter who is in charge.
Partly right. There was government legislation, government subsidy, but private companies run them.

False, it relies on competitive forces and necessarily benefits people who have no need for state mandated coverages that spike costs in that area.
Perhaps, but I'm not as convinced as you are. Again, there are reasons why a policy is more expensive in one state than another. Those reasons don't go away.

Again, garbage. This is exactly why people need more choice, I don't know an easy fix since the jurisdiction falls on the commissioner of insurance for any given state but is a great solution if paired with other common sense reforms.
Not sure what you're calling garbage here. Again, there are reasons. likely valid and invalid reasons, but reasons. I don't see them disappearing.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Partly right. There was government legislation, government subsidy, but private companies run them.
Doesn't matter, everything they do was created by a government model and thus cleared. Other companies do not(thank god) have the right to structure their business models as such. And yes HMO's for the most part suck.



Perhaps, but I'm not as convinced as you are. Again, there are reasons why a policy is more expensive in one state than another. Those reasons don't go away.
Here's how it works. Every state in the union has coverage mandates that run the gamut from pregnancy coverage to regional risk diseases to anything else that has been justified by that state's I.commissioner. Mandatory coverage adds to costs. If a company can sell in Ca. without having that state's mandated issuance then a client can choose a less structured model from La. or Ga. or even Ny, they of course would have to understand that they would have to get riders for those coverages as they aren't mandated by that state but would probably still come out ahead in premium per month.



Not sure what you're calling garbage here. Again, there are reasons. likely valid and invalid reasons, but reasons. I don't see them disappearing.
The reverse price effect. In a truly competitive market this never happens. In fact what you may see is an end to demand for mandatory coverage law as people see how much damage it does to their pocketbooks.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Doesn't matter, everything they do was created by a government model and thus cleared. Other companies do not(thank god) have the right to structure their business models as such. And yes HMO's for the most part suck.
It does matter. And while I think they do suck now, they really didn't in the begining. The first one I was in was the best insurance I ever had. But the point is, the government does run them.

Here's how it works. Every state in the union has coverage mandates that run the gamut from pregnancy coverage to regional risk diseases to anything else that has been justified by that state's I.commissioner. Mandatory coverage adds to costs. If a company can sell in Ca. without having that state's mandated issuance then a client can choose a less structured model from La. or Ga. or even Ny, they of course would have to understand that they would have to get riders for those coverages as they aren't mandated by that state but would probably still come out ahead in premium per month.
If an insurance outside the state doens't have the mandated coverage, wouldn't that still be a problem. Buying it outside doesn't mean the need for the mandated coverage ceases to exist, right? So, while waving for a cheaper coverage may be appealing to some, if they gamble poorly and end up with a non-covered problem, and can't pay on their own, who pays? And where does that cost go? Again, I don't believe this is an automatic saver.



The reverse price effect. In a truly competitive market this never happens. In fact what you may see is an end to demand for mandatory coverage law as people see how much damage it does to their pocketbooks.
How can they? They will simply get treated without paying. As a people we will not turn people away from the ER, so they simply get sicker, come in as an emergency, or something a little less, and get treated, without paying. Then the pass along continues. remember, before insurance, not was technology not as good, but many people simply didn't get treated. Those who did often had to trade fruits and vergetables, and other services for care. No one is willing to go back to those days. So, this means we have to plan to be able to pay for the new technology and to not leave people without care. And as long as we will treat people who can't pay, someone else will pay for it. We can do that in a controlled and efficient way, or in the ad hock inefficient way we have been.
 
Top Bottom