make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

These aren't solutions: "Let

These aren't solutions: "Let insurers sell plans that only cover major injuries and illnesses, and the cost of health insurance will plummet. Make people pay for their own 'routine maintenance and minor repairs.'" How are you defining major injuries and illnesses? And why would you want to take away an option for people to purchase full coverage health care? I don't even understand how you think this would work. Is a broken leg "major" or "minor?" Is a cat scan to see if one has a benign tumor "major or minor? I think your solution would make things worse, IMO, can you imagine the crazy exclusions and insane cost? "We can also drive costs down by throwing people OUT of ERs when they show up with minor ailments." Sorry, can't do that in public hospitals, they are paid for by the taxpayers of the community, state and federal. It is also against the law to turn people away until they are stabilized, which means running tests. "A third option is to initiate tort reform to eliminate windfall, lottery-like lawsuits because a doctor made a mistake." Well, now you're suggesting having a non profit system. In a capitalist system, you have to have safeguards against mistakes. If doctors make mistakes, they have to pay for them and if they are negligent, then they have to pay more. The reason for that is simple. If a doc rushes and is negligent, yet has to pay a simple fine, the doctor will not be more mindful. There would be no incentive to do so. The fact is, tort reform would not really do very much to thwart costs. Most people do not sue, even when mistakes are made: "In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year. Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system. But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” “In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said." http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.h... "The entire issue of healthcare and its associated costs is being driven by an underlying flawed logic, that everyone DESERVES unlimited medical care on demand. We DESERVE nothing. We are entitled only to what we can pay for with what we EARN." I have yet to hear any argument like that. I do wonder why I should be subsidizing your health insurance, while I am locked out of the same pools, rates and protections I pay for you to have. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.