I think it's just the opposite, I don't think most people pushing the current reform efforts have an appreciation for the cliff this will take us over.

 

Even if it will be taking us over a metaphorical cliff in terms of government spending, the proposed reform is still quite moderate. Post-reform bill the US system will still be the most conservative (in the American sense) system in the world.

 

I believe change is needed, just not to the extent being discussed.

 

The problem is that there isn't a simple, nuanced change that will have any effect on the system. Systemic problems require systemic changes and we have a systemic problem. That's not to say what is proposed is the best solution, I have a lot of complaints with it, but it's the best solution available right now and, most importantly, it's better than the status quo.

Or that white collar profit seeking individual can simply deny your claim/test/procedure to keep cost down, profit margin up and share holders happy by increasing dividends. He doesn't have to worry about satisfying customers because most people have no choice with whom there coverage is provided by, myself included.:idunno:

http://sickforprofit.com/

And why is that?

And why is that?

 

It is the way "the market" has driven things.

And why is that?

 

My employers health insurance is provided through Anthem. I do not have the ability to chose between other providers without going out and purchasing an individual policy which is not affordable to me or most people IMO. So if they raise my premiums and deductables all the while denying claims and lowering coverage. I can't simply switch providers because I'm unhappy so customer service does not factor into the scenario.

Even if it will be taking us over a metaphorical cliff in terms of government spending, the proposed reform is still quite moderate. Post-reform bill the US system will still be the most conservative (in the American sense) system in the world.

 

 

 

The problem is that there isn't a simple, nuanced change that will have any effect on the system. Systemic problems require systemic changes and we have a systemic problem. That's not to say what is proposed is the best solution, I have a lot of complaints with it, but it's the best solution available right now and, most importantly, it's better than the status quo.

 

Strongly disagree.

Or that white collar profit seeking individual can simply deny your claim/test/procedure to keep cost down, profit margin up and share holders happy by increasing dividends. He doesn't have to worry about satisfying customers because most people have no choice with whom there coverage is provided by, myself included.:idunno:

http://sickforprofit.com/

 

The government program will also be able to deny your claim/test/procedure to keep cost down.

 

The government (if in control by law) certainly will not worry about satisfying customers.

 

Most people don't have as much choice as they should now because of state laws (can't compete across state lines) passed by government.

 

As the bill is now intended, if you become a member of the government program or are not insured when/if passed, you will have ZERO choices.

 

Look guys, it's 1/6th of the US economy. I don't know the answers, but isn't there something we can do instead of handing it (or any part of it) over to a government that has proven it cannot manage it?

Years ago I worked for a company that reviewed hospital bills for insurance companies. An IV bag of fluid might cost $5.00 and the hospital would charge $150.00! We would adjust the bill and pay $25.00. Usually the hospital accepted payment. I was amazed at what hospitals charge.

Unfortunately the man who ran the company was unscrupulous himself and we went out of business.

 

Why cant there be some type of review to make sure prices are reasonable?

 

Of course, any review would have to include that the patient doesnt have to pay the difference.

 

I dont want any government official telling me what medical tests I can and cannot have, but by reviewing the costs of certain things, perhaps the cost of care can be reduced.

 

:thumb:

 

I believe small obvious steps should be the first reform. My hospital loves to send me multiple bills for the same procedure. Im quite sure they dont refund the money if I pay it multiple times.

Years ago I worked for a company that reviewed hospital bills for insurance companies. An IV bag of fluid might cost $5.00 and the hospital would charge $150.00! We would adjust the bill and pay $25.00. Usually the hospital accepted payment. I was amazed at what hospitals charge.

Unfortunately the man who ran the company was unscrupulous himself and we went out of business.

 

Why cant there be some type of review to make sure prices are reasonable?

 

Of course, any review would have to include that the patient doesnt have to pay the difference.

 

I dont want any government official telling me what medical tests I can and cannot have, but by reviewing the costs of certain things, perhaps the cost of care can be reduced.

 

Will the same government office that approves things like $650 toilet seats and $250 hammers for the Air Force be reviewing the costs of things at hospitals? Just wondering.

I'd like to see a poll using only people who have had to actually use their health care for critical care to see how happy they are/were with it.

 

That's where the rubber meets the road.

I'd like to see a poll using only people who have had to actually use their health care for critical care to see how happy they are/were with it.

 

That's where the rubber meets the road.

I would guess that if they are now alive and healthy they will approve of it. If not...

If this government program is going to be so great, why has Congress not included its members in the program? Maybe for the same reason they are not in Social Security.

If this government program is going to be so great, why has Congress not included its members in the program? Maybe for the same reason they are not in Social Security.

 

There's a start, require them to participate in any health program they pass.

I would guess that if they are now alive and healthy they will approve of it. If not...

 

I doubt it. Just because you survived doesn't mean you were pleased with the process.

 

I've successfully completed airplane trips where I wasn't very pleased with the experience.

If this government program is going to be so great, why has Congress not included its members in the program? Maybe for the same reason they are not in Social Security.

 

Your point would have validity if the govt option was the ONLY option. However, since that is nowhere near the case why would we force govt officials to do something we won't be required to do?

I doubt it. Just because you survived doesn't mean you were pleased with the process.

 

I've successfully completed airplane trips where I wasn't very pleased with the experience.

Yes, an airplane ride and surviving a critical illness or injury is the same. Good comparison.