• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

What should really be done about health care?

The first thing that people should know is that they have to much insurance. That is why the "administrative costs" are so high. There are two parts to health insurance; insurance that covers major medical issues (i.e. heart attacks, cancer, etc) and that which covers minor health issues (i.e. colds, stomach virus, etc). The former is prohibitavely expensive and generally happen to suddenly to make financial plans. The later is inexpensive in comparrison and can be easily paid by 85-90% of Americans. However, most Americans mistakenly believe that they need health insurance to cover the inexpensive care on top of the expensive care. By purchasing so much coverage, they pay another entity to pay bills that they may or may not get.

In my case, I had a job that couldn't provide health insurance so I purchased my own insurance in the open market. I had the choice of full coverage or major medical coverage. The difference in price was $210 a month. The difference in coverage was $30 copay or no coverage before $5,000. So, I could pay $2,500+ a year for doctor's visits that I may or may not use only to have a $5,000 deductible plus a 20% copay after the deductible if I had a major medical event plus copays or I could save the $2,500+ and maintain the same deductible with a 0% copay (i.e. no money out of my pocket) after the deductible.

So which is cheaper? In order for me to save money on the full coverage plan, I would have to visit the doctor an average of 1.5 times a month AND I couldn't have a major medical event. If I had a major medical event, I had better coverage with the major medical plan than with the comprehensive plan.

Imagine if we could get 200 million people to save $2,500 a year. We, as a country would save $5,000,000,000. Estimates put health care spending around $1.7 trillion. Just by eliminating full coverage for most of the country, we could reduce health care spending to $1.2 trillion.

All that to support my first step in reducing health care costs would be:

1) Ban comprehensive health insurance.

2) Set reasonable limits to medical malpractice lawsuits, with exceptions for systemic ignorance and or mallace.

3) Require insurers to accept all medical conditions when approving a new policy holder if that policy holder, within the past 90 days, held health insurance in good standing (that means they made their payments). Potentional policy holders that have not had health insurance should be subject to existing medical conditions clauses to prevent fraud.

4) Open insurance sales acrossed state lines to increase competition.

5) Bill all recepients for health care services. If they cannot pay, require public service as a form of payment. The doctors and nurses improved the recepients life, the least they can do (if they can't pay) is to improve the lives of others in return.

6) Enforce immigration laws. (This will also help with schools, jobs, housing, crime, and a whole host of other issues)
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think this plan has some real problems, but most of all, it doesn't seem very ‘conservative’.

1) Ban comprehensive health insurance? Why interfere with the private marketplace? It seems to be an arbitrary and heavy handed regulation to me. Whatever happened to letting the marketplace decide?

2) Set reasonable limits to medical malpractice lawsuits? Who's getting to decide the ‘reasonable’ limit? Some faceless government bureaucrat? Why should they be able to limit American juries? Isn't this an arbitrary and heavy handed government interference, too?

3) What about the people with preexisting conditions who don't qualify under this plan, what happens to them? Will government have to protect the covered people from hearing the screams and crying of all those suffering people who don't qualify and can't afford health care?

4) What happened to letting state's regulate their own health insurance marketplaces? Won't the state with least amount of regulation in effect dictate to all the others?

5) If the non-paying medical care recipients provide public service, what form of compensation do the medical providers get? The pleasure of cleaner highways?

6) Oh, great! Let's tie one intractable problem to another intractable problem. That'll really get us some progress.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Chappy;bt409 said:
I think this plan has some real problems, but most of all, it doesn't seem very ‘conservative’.

1) Ban comprehensive health insurance? Why interfere with the private marketplace? It seems to be an arbitrary and heavy handed regulation to me. Whatever happened to letting the marketplace decide?

We banned financial gimmicks like Ponzi schemes because they take advantage of consumers. Why not ban a type of insurance that takes advantage of consumers?

2) Set reasonable limits to medical malpractice lawsuits? Who's getting to decide the ‘reasonable’ limit? Some faceless government bureaucrat? Why should they be able to limit American juries? Isn't this an arbitrary and heavy handed government interference, too?

It has been done in several states and no one's rights have been lost. Texas set malpractice limits to $2 million and the cost of malpractice insurance dropped 80%.

3) What about the people with preexisting conditions who don't qualify under this plan, what happens to them? Will government have to protect the covered people from hearing the screams and crying of all those suffering people who don't qualify and can't afford health care?

You have two other options other than what I have put forward, allow people to buy insurance at any time and not allow insurance companies to protect themselves from fraud or force everyone to buy insurance. I think my way is the best compromise.

4) What happened to letting state's regulate their own health insurance marketplaces? Won't the state with least amount of regulation in effect dictate to all the others?

What happened to allowing people to shop via the free market?

5) If the non-paying medical care recipients provide public service, what form of compensation do the medical providers get? The pleasure of cleaner highways?

The same way they do now. Think about this, if we get highways, parks and public building cleaned for free...how much money does that free up? The biggest thing here is to set a penalty for not paying.

6) Oh, great! Let's tie one intractable problem to another intractable problem. That'll really get us some progress.

Oh, they are related. It is estimated that illegal immigrants cost Americans $600 million.
 
Top Bottom