Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone disagrees that healthcare reform needs to be implemented, but we do disagree with how that goal is to be attained. In the Price Water-House Coopers analysis 200 billion dollars is wasted on defensive medicine meaning physicians and hospitals order extraneous tests to protect themselves against malpractice lawsuits. Those numbers are unaccounted for in statements made by the CBO that state malpractice suits only account for the 1-4%. In additon nearly 3/4 of malpractice suits that go to trial favor the defense proving the majority of these lawsuits have no merit. The criteria to which a suit can be filed needs to be adjusted since the majority are frivolous. Personal injury attorneys lose nothing in the process. They are aware that most physicians will settle out of court because the cost of defending themselves is more than settling. Even physicians who have won cases will tell you they lost a considerable amount of time away from the practice not to mention the emotional and stressful experience of being involved in it.
I agree that Private Insurance premiums are outrageously expensive. I also agree these companies are greedy and have raised premiums not in line with costs. However, I don't agree that the solution is a public option. That will lead to socialized health care. Most Americans are insured through their employers. With a public option, employers will opt to provide health insurance to their employees under the Obamacare plan instead of private insurance plans because it's cheaper. The majority of Americans will lose their private insurance coverage as a result and be placed on the public option. This will force private insurance companies to lower premiums to compete, but they will do so at the expense of the patient. Like any business, private insurance companies will not lower their executive pay but instead will shift the burden onto the patients and the doctors. When companies are forced to incur higher costs, do they sacrafice with regard to executive pay or do they increase prices? I think we know the answer to that. Private Insurance will deny services to patients such as authorizing visits to specialists, denying use of certain medications and relying on generic drugs, and deny procedures. As a result, many private insurance companies will lose significant numbers of members and will be forced out of business. This will shift those patients onto the public option thereby increasing its membership and providing it with more leverage and power to make decisions. So for the majority of Americans, the quality of their healthcare will decrease under this current plan.
In addition, the public option will not necessarily provide universal healthcare. Just because a cheaper public option exists, it doesn't mean people will sign up for it. Many people simply do not want to pay for healthcare regardless of it's price. There is an estimated 10 million or so Americans who can afford healthcare but choose not to pay for it. For them, many of these people are young and in good health and feel their money is best spent elsewhere rather than healthcare. The know that if they are injured in an acute setting, they can still be treated in the emergency room.
A better solution is to remove the public option. A more practical solution is to negotiate with the insurance companies with regards to providing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (which they have already agreed to do) and to negotiate premiums to enable more Americans to afford healthcare. We can institute tort reform by setting stricter guidelines for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit even if we don't want to place caps on punitive damages. I think we all agree that the quality of healthcare in this country is good; it's the cost that is outrageous and many people can't afford it. Instead of dismantling what is good about our healthcare system, why don't we address the specific problems...namely that private insurance is charging too much in premiums.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 08-13-2009 at 03:01 PM..
azriverfan, you said that you're a surgeon who performs expensive procedures on mostly-wealthy patients, correct?
No, I'm a cardiologist that sees all types of patients including Medicaid patients. I do have some foreign patients that are willing to pay cash to be seen such as Canadian patients. Yes, these Canadians are often wealthy who would rather pay cash to be treated in the United States rather than in Canada for free. I would say 90% of my patients are middle class or lower.
AZriverfan. . . if you, as a "health care provider" think that "for profit" healthcare insurance, while admitting that any cost cutting that can / will be done, in that system, will come from patient care and not from exec. salaries, then I must only conclude that you are less interested in seeing the country have an affordable system that (eventually) covers all, the UHC that you disparage, but agree with you that over time, that will be the (long needed) result! That is a GOOD THING! There will always be a market amoung wealthy for "concierge" health serviced, and you, if you are inclined can cater to that clientelle. Most of us NEED health care but cannot afford to pay the exhorbitant salaries of HMO and insurance company executives. . . do you really believe, as a physician, that lining the pockets of the few is a higher goal than adequate and necessary health care for all?
With a public option, employers will opt to provide health insurance to their employees under the Obamacare plan instead of private insurance plans because it's cheaper.
There is a provision in one of the bills to prevent this I believe.
I would lend more credibility to these arguments that the public option will destroy private insurance companies if anyone could come up with solid examples of this happening in nations that offer public health insurance options. Of all the nations with public healthcare I personally know of, there are private options that you can purchase yourself or through your employer.
Instead of dismantling what is good about our healthcare system, why don't we address the specific problems...namely that private insurance is charging too much in premiums.
This isn't the only large problem with today's system, but it's a very good question. Why wasn't this done during the previous EIGHT YEARS? The GOP side of the aisle had no incentive to take profits out of the pockets of the large healthcare insurors. Now, being out of political power, they have that incentive. This is telling, of course. And why their point of view should be DISCOUNTED in these discussions. They have been ENABLERS of at least one of the big problems in the current system.
AZriverfan. . . if you, as a "health care provider" think that "for profit" healthcare insurance, while admitting that any cost cutting that can / will be done, in that system, will come from patient care and not from exec. salaries, then I must only conclude that you are less interested in seeing the country have an affordable system that (eventually) covers all, the UHC that you disparage, but agree with you that over time, that will be the (long needed) result! That is a GOOD THING! There will always be a market amoung wealthy for "concierge" health serviced, and you, if you are inclined can cater to that clientelle. Most of us NEED health care but cannot afford to pay the exhorbitant salaries of HMO and insurance company executives. . . do you really believe, as a physician, that lining the pockets of the few is a higher goal than adequate and necessary health care for all?
I do think there needs to reform. And I do agree with you that these HMO's and other groups have abused the system. Nonetheless, would we be having this discussion if private insurance premiums didn't shoot through the roof? Of course not, people respect and enjoy the quality of our healthcare. The issue is access to that healthcare. I don't see why we should dismantle the quality of our healthcare when it's still possible to increase access to healthcare while maintaining quality.
I don't think anyone disagrees that healthcare reform needs to be implemented, but we do disagree with how that goal is to be attained. In the Price Water-House Coopers analysis 200 billion dollars is wasted on defensive medicine meaning physicians and hospitals order extraneous tests to protect themselves against malpractice lawsuits. Those numbers are unaccounted for in statements made by the CBO that state malpractice suits only account for the 1-4%. In additon nearly 3/4 of malpractice suits that go to trial favor the defense proving the majority of these lawsuits have no merit. The criteria to which a suit can be filed needs to be adjusted since the majority are frivolous. Personal injury attorneys lose nothing in the process. They are aware that most physicians will settle out of court because the cost of defending themselves is more than settling. Even physicians who have won cases will tell you they lost a considerable amount of time away from the practice not to mention the emotional and stressful experience of being involved in it.
I agree that Private Insurance premiums are outrageously expensive. I also agree these companies are greedy and have raised premiums not in line with costs. However, I don't agree that the solution is a public option. That will lead to socialized health care. Most Americans are insured through their employers.
You fail to define 'most'. As a matter of fact, it's currently barely more than half -- 59.3%. And those numbers are dwindling every day.
We estimate that 2.4 million workers have lost the health coverage their jobs provided since the start of the recession, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Approximately, 1.3 million of these losses have occurred in the last four months. More than 320,000 Americans lost their employer-provided health insurance in March alone, which amounts to approximately 10,680 workers a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
With a public option, employers will opt for the Obamacare plan instead of private insurance plans because it's cheaper.
You assume. I assume the exact opposite. I believe that employers will be even more likely to include health care coverage as part of their benefits package, because it will attract better employees and help with retention if the plan they offer exceeds the benefits of the public option. Who's to say you're right and I'm wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
The majority of Americans will lose their private insurance coverage as a result and be placed on the public option.
See my link above. As the system currently stands, when someone loses their job, if they were one of the lucky ones who had health care coverage through their employer, they lose any health care coverage at all. A public option provides a safety net, especially in times of economic crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
This will force private insurance companies to lower premiums to compete, but they will do so at the expense of the patient. Like any business, private insurance companies will not lower their executive pay but instead will shift the burden onto the patients and the doctors. When companies are forced to incur higher costs, do they sacrafice with regard to executive pay or do they increase prices? I think we know the answer to that. Private Insurance will deny services to patients such as authorizing visits to specialists, denying use of certain medications and relying on generic drugs, and deny procedures. As a result, many private insurance companies will lose significant numbers of members and will be forced out of business. This will shift those patients onto the public option thereby increasing its membership and providing it with more leverage and power to make decisions. So for the majority of Americans, the quality of their healthcare will decrease under this current plan.
Just more speculation. Do you have any data that would support your contentions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
In addition, the public option will not necessarily provide universal healthcare. Just because a cheaper public option exists, it doesn't mean people will sign up for it. Many people simply do not want to pay for healthcare regardless of it's price. There is an estimated 10 million or so Americans who can afford healthcare but choose not to pay for it. For them, many of these people are young and in good health and feel their money is best spent elsewhere rather than healthcare. The know that if they are injured in an acute setting, they can still be treated in the emergency room.
It is my understanding that they are working on a way to address this, though I admit I am unfamiliar with any current section of the proposed legislation that might.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
A better solution is to remove the public option. A more practical solution is to negotiate with the insurance companies with regards to providing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (which they have already agreed to do) and to negotiate premiums to enable more Americans to afford healthcare. We can institute tort reform by setting stricter guidelines for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit even if we don't want to place caps on punitive damages. I think we all agree that the quality of healthcare in this country is good; it's the cost that is outrageous and many people can't afford it. Instead of dismantling what is good about our healthcare system, why don't we address the specific problems...namely that private insurance is charging too much in premiums.
I don't understand your thought process here. Above, you claim that private health insurance providers will never lower their executive pay if a public option is on the table. But somehow if it's not, they'll suddenly become more altruistic? If not in executive pay, where else would you suggest that they pare down their overhead so they can pass along the savings to us? I already directed you to the facts about Tort Reform above.
What's wrong with socialized medicine? We will have a public option. It's going to happen. The Republicans are now on the sidelines and the Democrats will work out a compromise among themselves. Thus is the privileged extended to the party with an overwhelming majority.
I would lend more credibility to these arguments that the public option will destroy private insurance companies if anyone could come up with solid examples of this happening in nations that offer public health insurance options. Of all the nations with public healthcare I personally know of, there are private options that you can purchase yourself or through your employer.
You can't compare the United States to these other countries because they pay much higher taxes and also have a smaller population to cover. It's not analagous to a country with 300 million people who would not endorse paying 70-80% of their income in taxes.
You have to examine the model as how it applies to the United States. Most Americans are covered through their employers. Why would an employer pay higher premiums through private insurance for its employees when it can pay less through a government sponsored option. Therefore, the majority of Americans who enjoy their coverage under private insurance will lose their private insurance coverage. This is why the majority of Americans are opposed to this plan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
