Reply With Quote
So what laws will apply to policies bought across state lines?
And as far as "junk" lawsuits go, how much did tort reform in Texas lower insurance premiums?
I'd like to see some numbers for that.
Congressman Paul Ryan ideas aren't perfect or even very good, but they're the best in the mainstream political market by far and away. Those are the ideas that the GOP should get behind.
So what laws will apply to policies bought across state lines?
And as far as "junk" lawsuits go, how much did tort reform in Texas lower insurance premiums?
I'd like to see some numbers for that.
Is something like that really practical when it comes to health care? Seems to me like all this would do is make doctors turn away patients once they come down with something that would be expensive to treat.
Premiums went up. Are there any numbers that specifically identify tort reform as the reason they did? Or any suggesting that premiums wouldn't have gone up as much had we not enacted tort reform?
Tort reform in Texas wasn't enough to keep premiums from going up. That says something right there, because we know doctors saw considerable savings in the cost of insurance because of it.
Insurance premium cost is not a good metric for healthcare costs.
*edit*
Screw me. Winehole just said the same thing.
Depending where those funds would come from, I wouldn't neccissarily be opposed. I've suggested on here a couple of times a program where we tax junk food and disribute the proceeds to everyone via HSA accounts.
No, I was saying heavily funded HSAs by the individual. I was talking about the conditions under which someone could be denied service. I said give them some options and if they turn all of them down, let them sign a waiver of medical service. Then I was asked what other options are there outsided of insurance or no insurance, and I said heavily funded HSAs.
If there is some rich guy out there who wanted to exercise his freedom from insurance, but didn't want to be penalized for exercising it he could fund his HSA to a certain level. So if someone refuses to get insurance, doesn't qualify for medicaid (due to income), and refuses to fund an HSA at a level where he/she is able to cover the costs of his/her medical bills in the event of catastrophic event, then he/she can sign a waiver that states that they refuse medical service. Of course this conversation was being held in the context of the cost of medicine (and insurance) coming down.
Is having health-care insurance really that important? What's the impact of lack of health-care insurance on one's health? Would universal healthcare, covering the uninsured, save lives?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20100...rage-mortality
It's not about 'having health insurance or not'. It's about general, affordable access to care. A lot of people go bankrupt trying to pay back their medical bills. They did receive emergency care, but it basically destroyed their finances. If paying out of pocket would be cheaper than having insurance, then people would simply pay out of pocket.
The current system is inherently a scam at many levels, the two I think are the biggest are:
1) Dropping your coverage when you lose your job, specifically when you lose your job because of a medial condition. This is an issue that spirals out of control very quickly. My wife actually went through this so I know first hand it takes many years to get back on your feet after something like that.
2) People being moved from the private to the public system after a certain age. The private company milks the person for all they have until they actually will need coverage the most. Then they dump them to the public system and we taxpayers need to pick up the bill. It's like a company selling you car insurance, but if your car is over 10 years old (and most likely to malfunction) then the taxpayers pick up the bill in case of an accident.
I didn't understand your answer. Would general, affordable access to health-care save lives or not?
I agree with your 2 points. 1) The employer based health system must be dismantled ASAP. 2) Same for Medicare.
Yes.
You conclusions are not the same as mine. For number 1, I think regulation of insurance companies to close that loophole should exist. For number 2, I actually think Medicare should be EXPANDED not dismantled.
How do you know? Have you read the article? Do you have a peer-reviewed study of your own?
I've read the article. His conclusion is basically that there's not enough data in the two studies he cited to prove that having ready access to care will save lives. Obviously, that also doesn't prove that having ready access won't save lives either.
Obviously, hand picking his datasets works real well to put together that story. There's plenty of datasets on death rates from the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the CIA World Factbook. You will always find multiple countries with smaller death rates than the US and having single payor systems (which are pretty much what's used everywhere else in the world).
We have discussed this topic extensively, including the numbers, with other forum members a long while ago. I vividly recall having at least a discussion about it with Wild Cobra and SnC some time ago.
Now, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Feel free to use the Search function above.
McArdle is a girl.
1) I don't think you read the entire article. She cited more than two studies:
For a long time, two of the best studies were Sorlie et al. (1994), which used a large sample of census data from 1982 to 1985; and Franks, Clancy, and Gold (1993).
Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.2) Correlation isn't causation. I'm not sure if you're comparing comparable things. What additional studies, not mentioned in the article, would you recommend?
In a recent review of the literature, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago noted that the latest studies of this question “paint a surprisingly consistent picture: Medicare increases consumption of medical care and may modestly improve self-reported health but has no effect on mortality, at least in the short run.”
3) I guess your answer is you don't know but you have faith, right?
This acually sounds interesting. I don't know enough about the issue to say whether or not it would work, but do you know if some politician in either party is suggesting it?
Again, I think we're having a communication problem. I'm not arguing the article or it's conclusions, because it limited itself to the datasets available for the US under the current system. That's why I said:
It's not about 'having health insurance or not'. It's about general, affordable access to care.
I think the article (not the studies the article is based on) is one big strawman. It draws conclusions that mortality rate wouldn't change if we were to expand Medicare into a public option, when the studies merely address death risk between the insured vs uninsured in the current system.
Do you have any peer reviewed study that projects what the changes in mortality rate would be (if any) with the expansion of Medicare into a public option? Because those studies the article is based on do not, and the article itself is far from a peer reviewed do ent, it's merely an opinion piece.
What isn't an opinion? That article is an opinion piece too. Until we give it an actual shot we won't know conclusively. I formed my opinion from looking at the published numbers of a couple different reputable sources that clearly show that better access to care reduce mortality rate.
What did you form your opinion from?
This is what I think would work.
Why? A strawman against who? It answers a very precise question. You may not like the question or the answer, but that doesn't make the article a strawman.
If gaining insurance has a large effect on people’s health, we should see outcomes improve dramatically between one’s early and late 60s. Yet like the Kronick and Rand studies, analyses of the effect of Medicare, which becomes available to virtually everyone in America at the age of 65, show little benefit. In a recent review of the literature, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago noted that the latest studies of this question “paint a surprisingly consistent picture: Medicare increases consumption of medical care and may modestly improve self-reported health but has no effect on mortality, at least in the short run.”
Of course, you can always argue that a bigger expansion will change things.
Great. Do you mind to mention a couple of those reputable sources.
I see.
When the conclusion is:
But we should have had a better handle on the case for expanded coverage—and, more important, the evidence behind it—before we embarked on a year-long debate that divided our house against itself.
and none of the studies attempt to tackle or project expanded coverage, trying to claim such studies are the evidence on expanding coverage is, indeed, a strawman.
I already did.
That's the bottom line for consumers of insurance, so why not?
This is it in a nuts .
Until this happens......costs will rise and services will suffer.if people payed out of pocket, they would shop around more and it would create more compe ion
Of course, it will never happen to the degree it needs to...and everyone will have their own little "fixes" and ideas that attack little niches and fringes of the problem, without ever adressing the problem.
The solution is out there...the desire to solve the problem using the best solution out there is not.
Problem will never be solved.
And you can put money on that prediction.
We will have less free market solutions, and more tinkering by politicians and beaurocrats trying to fix a problem they are unwilling to really fix.
This is how it works.
...and so it goes.
Last edited by SouthernFried; 02-10-2010 at 09:41 PM.
The Republican's portability proposal would create instant compe ion that would drive insurance prices down overnight.
Unfortunately, this isn't really about health care costs or uninsured Americans. Nothing in the Democrat plan will drive prices down and, by their own calculations, some 15 to 20 million Americans will remain uninsured after implementation. Not to mention the cutting of Medicare and Medicaid services, rationing of care as all socialistic health care schemes ultimately do, etc...
It's about gaining government control over 17% of the economy. Period.
The portability issue is a case in point.
Why isn't insurance as portable as it should be?
Not because companies limit themselves to certain states. It's because some govt beaurocrat limits them.
Govt creates the problems it then goes about trying to fix.
This is always the case...and will always be the case in healthcare. As long as govt is involved...there are going to be problems it just can't seem to ever fix.
...and so it goes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
