We All Need Healthcare; Who Needs "Insurance"?

[eridani]

Glad to see that some insurers are at least growing consciences.

http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/559758

We All Need Healthcare; Who Needs "Insurance"?
By Georganne Chapin, JD, MPhil, President and CEO, Hudson Health Plan


I am a health insurance and managed care executive so you may find this editorial a bit strange. I believe that the way to fix our healthcare system is to stop relying on insurance and focus instead on healthcare.

So, what's wrong with health insurance?

Well, first, it's temporary. This may work for auto policies, but not for human health.

Second, health insurance is mostly contingent on where you live and whom you work for. It's easy to transfer car insurance, but not health insurance.

Finally, insurance companies make more money by minimizing pay-outs than by keeping people healthy. Human beings -- who need preventive care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security, and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them.

Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the same family could end up with separate policies, with different benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient.

Finally, insurance companies make more money by minimizing pay-outs than by keeping people healthy. Human beings -- who need preventive care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security, and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them.

Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the same family could end up with separate policies, with different benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient.

Other developed nations have universal healthcare, not "insurance." They give healthcare to everybody, they spend less, and they are healthier for it.

But, we have an example of success in this country, too. It's called Medicare. And while flawed, Medicare meets the most important criteria for a universal healthcare system: it's permanent, it's portable, and it's simple and inexpensive to administer.

The health insurance model is flawed because it depends on people falling between the cracks after they pay their premiums and before they collect their "benefits." Rather than insurance, providing healthcare to everyone would cost less and deliver more in the long run.

[RC]

1. You got it!

Universal Health Care along with reasonable cost for prescription drugs as part of the health care.
Why are the prescription drugs separate from the health care when they are part of the care? For some people, getting their prescriptions means being functional. The cost of some needed prescriptions are Thousands of Dollars a month. Why? Except for greed, why?

[luckyleftyme2]

2. it works everywhere else

lets face it the only ones who want the system we have are the insurances companies and
their bought and paid for civil servants.

[rodeodance]

3. I will forward this to all I know!

[raccoon]

4. K&R nt

[Melissa G]

5. Yep.. Health Insurance. A misdirection of public discourse brought to you

by the insurance industry and those they have bought.

[meow2u3]

6. The current health care system is a racket

The way the health care system is set up, we're supposed to pay a regular premium in exchange for "medically necessary" medical and/or surgical care, but in practice, is nothing but legalized theft. Despite--or because of--the health insurance paperwork claiming that medical and/or surgical procedures are covered, greedy, crooked, or even mob-corrupted executives often arbitrarily refuse to cover life-saving procedures, claiming they're not "medically necessary", when in reality they're merely expensive and eat into windfall profits.
To make matters worse, the Repunks in Congress immunized these HMO's from lawsuits, leaving patients without any legal recourse and effectively legalizing corporate racketeering.

[slipslidingaway]

7. K&R nt

[Mabus]

8. K&R

Because I can't add anything that people aren't already thinking or have said.

[Summer93]

9. Kick and recommend

I am glad to see someone with credentials put this message out there.

The insurance corporations are making a lot of money from denying life saving treatment - this is so wrong on so many levels. Greed - money made on people dying.

[eridani]

10. That even people in the insurance industry are starting to get it--

--is really a cause for hope.