[quote name='Ruined']mykevermin 1, reading comprehension 0. Current system meaning our current healthcare system as it exists today, not the current senate bill or any recent reform bill/program proposed.
Tort reform itself could cause much lower costs over time because doctors will practice less defensive medicine. Less defensive medicine means less unnecessary expensive test batteries just to cover their ass, even if condition being tested for is unlikely. Less unnecessary expensive test batteries is less cost to the insurance company, which can then lead to lower premiums.
While tort reform may not be the end all be all of cost savings, it does not increase cost. The current democrat bill(s) do some things that will in the long term be very costly IMO. Expand medicaid and give more money to states to cover medicaid costs? The is just pumping more blood into a body that is bleeding from a gunshot wound that has not been mended, fix the viability of the program before you pump more money into it.
If the gov't is so great at predicting costs, why are social security, medicaid, et. al bankrupt or approaching bankruptcy? If the gov't was a private business they'd be out of business ages ago. Luckily they have a captive audience, the taxpayers, to bail them out no matter how poorly they perform.
Why are you going on and on about interstate care? I didn't bring it up or strongly favor it, you brought it up (Twice now). My comment re: state regulations is more framed around what areas insurance companies are forced to cover and how that can differ from state to state. Insurance companies could offer tiered and clearly explained "basic" coverage plans and "premium" coverage plans at different rates in addition to the current HMO/POS/PPO etc that they currently do if the regulations for what conditions they must include were relaxed; of course with this they could offer mid-stream "upgrade" options if you want to go premium (at a significant financial penalty to the consumer) due to coverage of a condition you did not think you needed with the basic plan. This gives the consumer choice and lower cost, lets the consumer decide if they wish to risk cheaper coverage for less conditions, while also not sinking the ship if the consumer at some point needs more coverage than they originally paid for at first.
100% banning pre-existing condition clauses? While I think that it is a good idea to significantly curb said clauses by having some sort of significant financial penalty for upholding them (which will make insurance companies put some real thought into using them), outright banning them will also create large costs over time that will be difficult to counter. With a system like this only cases that would sink the ship would get denied, while risky cases that might have previously been denied might be accepted to avoid the financial penalty.
There are more than one ways to cook an egg, and cost while hugely important is not the end-all-be-all. I think costs should come down, but not with a dramatic loss of quality of care which I see happening for obvious reasons with a single payer system. Cheap healthcare insurance isn't so useful if the healthcare you receive is subpar.
Former already did, latter is your idea that you've brought up 3 times now. Probably because you are trying to pigeonhole me as staunchly supporting the republican proposal. As explained before at the moment I currently oppose the democrat proposal, and would like to see modifications of our existing system than a top to bottom overhaul. That does not necessarily mean the republicans have the ideal plan.
I think I will have a much easier job defending this viewpoint than you defending and explaining a pork-filled 2000 page big gov't bill as somehow being good for the people.
There are tons of different jobs out there of various professions, some more in demand than others. The healthcare offered by a job, no matter how great or how shitty, should be a serious factor in deciding which jobs to pursue and accept.
Its not so much that I oppose any government reform, I just oppose it on the scale that the house/senate/democrats are proposing. There are a few obvious key areas our current healthcare system could use improvement (which I am not going to repeat over and over again), but that does not mean we have to throw our current healthcare system in the trash.
Hopefully you have some more insight on where I'm coming from, though I will be very surprised if this post isn't followed by continued vitriol, namecalling, et. al by the more vocal liberal voices on this board. Anyway, time to go to sleep!
[/QUOTE]
You're basically saying the CBO and other expert panels are wrong about costs and benefits, and your gut instinct is right - merely because of the *presumption* that physicians will perform less defensive medicine? What data, what findings, what analysis have you done that makes you a better expert than the CBO?
Yet you dare call Msut narcissist?
What you propose will decrease the coverage in premiums people buy (race to the bottom), which will increase our collective health care costs because we're saddling a larger portion of their unexpected coverage than ever before.
What you propose increases the proportion of those without care because you don't see how the race to the bottom will enhance the costs of premiums for high-risk individuals, and the race to the bottom will force them into pools where they're undesirable as an isolated block. They'll still be going to hospitals for treatment (after all, they're high-risk) and they won't have insurance at all now, and they won't be able to pay for their expensive cost - remember, nothing you've proposed will have a significant impact on reducing the cost of care, let alone the year-over-year increase in care. And, worst of all, you've left intact or increased the number of Americans without health insurance.
Which is the reason why we're here today having this discussion. Your response is basically "
'em." Tell them to get a job that offers health care benefits. You don't care if people are covered, which means every attempt of yours to discuss lowering costs won't take into account the largest cost burden to health care (outside of the existence of private insurance industries): people who need care who lack insurance.
You are all charades and no substance. You support something that reduces the number of insured in the US and increases costs for the very people who need insurance the most (or outright deny those same people). You have no idea of the historical context of the world you live in or why we're even having this debate, do you? You clearly do not, seeing as how you've done nothing to address how the currently uninsured will pick up care in your world. But they don't matter - they're not of the same deserving economic status as you.
