Can I ask a stupid question a health insurance?

[BigBearJohn]

Let's say that the government started an insurance plan
that every single taxpayer paid into -- and that insurance plan
put back all the profits from the premiums paid back INTO the
insurance plan to lower the costs for people involved,
I wonder what the cost would be for the average taxpayer
to buy that insurance.

No jokes here. Please give me your thoughts if you feel
like it.

[rpannier]

1. I live in Korea and that's what they do here

I pay 55.00 a month.
Prescriptions are between 3-20 dollars.
A doctors visit is 7-15 dollars for a regular check up.
Dr. Fees are controlled.
It's harder to sue so medical malpractice insurance is lowered.
Pain and suffereing awards are limited.

I love the Korean system.

[BigBearJohn]

2. How long does it take to get a Dr appt? Oh, and thanks for your input.

[rpannier]

18. I walk in wait between five minutes to an hour and see a doctor.

My wife needed to see an ob/gyn, she had to wait two days, but it wasn't an emergency. If you have an emergency, they see you immediately just like everyone else.
I have friends who live here that are from Canada and they say it is true that for some things you wait longer in Canada than in the States. But if you need immediate treatment or have a condition that could be serious you get a doctor right away.
The stories told by the reich wing of people from coming to the US from Canada for treatment are, for the most part, people who want treatments for things that are not necessarily needed, but they want them.

[Lil]

3. I live in Australia, and everyone over a certain income pays

a small percentage (I think it's less than 1% but not sure) of their income for health insurance. Thre are no medications over $30AU and low income people pay no more than $4.

I can get an appointment the day I need it.

Here is the website
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/

[RedTail Wolf]

4. The idea Dems need to run on nationally imho..nt

[welshTerrier2]

5. "free" markets result in bad policy

allowing the interplay of fundamental supply and demand does a very good job regulating the price level of goods and services ... we often hear how "efficient" free markets are ... they are indeed efficient in setting the price level when allowed to operate unencumbered ...

but "free" markets have no vision; they have no values; they have no soul ...

by definition, corporations, e.g. health insurance companies in your example, are in business to make money ... they don't care about the national agenda to ensure every American ... they don't care about the suffering of those who cannot afford needed medical care ... their goal is to make more profit ... period ... it's important to also add that the pursuit of profits leads to "non-productive" costs such as massive advertising budgets ...

so, in defining the best system to meet the national agenda, we must recognize that business will not often align itself with societal goals; business has their own horse in the race and it's defined purely by greed ... as a society, assuming we accept the basic tenets of capitalism (and perhaps we shouldn't), we cannot allow a free hand to business in certain critical areas ... health insurance is a prime example (energy policy is another) ...

in the area of health insurance, our choices are to heavily regulate insurers (e.g. they must cover everyone) or to nationalize the industry ... but even the use of heavy regulation seems inadequate ... as your proposal correctly implies, why would we want the health needs of the American people to have to compete with those seeking capital gains by investing in health insurance companies???

i think your premise is correct ... as profits go to investors, the cost of health insurance rises and the number of people who can afford it decreases ... the lure of profits in some industries attracts needed capital but it does so at the cost of competing with our national priorities ... in critical areas like health insurance, this is a very poor trade-off ...

[SeattleGirl]

11. welshTerrier2, this is exactly what I have been saying

As long as insurance AND drug companies are allowed to be publicly-held and traded, profits for the company and benefits for the shareholders will always be the #1 and #2 priorities. The health and well-being of the people insured by the companies, or provided medications by the companies, will never be a priority.

I used to belong to an investment club, and someone suggested once that we invest in pfizer or Merck, I can't remember which. I told them essentially what you just said, and every woman in the group voted to NOT invest in the company.

[welshTerrier2]

17. glad to see someone agrees ...

check out this post i wrote a couple of days ago (see below) ...

it's on energy rather than health care but makes the exact same points ...

again the topic explores how "free" markets can establish a price by supply / demand interaction but can't see an energy crisis coming ... the republicans like to say that "free" markets allow the will of the consumers to set the direction ... the problem is, that price is always a short-term indicator ... long-term planning is needed if you're looking for good policies ...

so, for example, if gas prices remain high, consumers will demand either smaller cars or at least cars that get better mileage ... but they should have consistently been demanding this since the 1970's when we started understanding our energy vulnerabilities and the problems of global warming ... instead, a bunch of advertising from a profit-hungry auto industry hyped the demand for very ill-advised SUV's ... well, the market said SUV's were popular - the policy should have said that gas guzzlers were insane ...

here's a link to a previous post on this subject:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/40

[BigBearJohn]

6. I am going to write my legislator and suggest this. I hope you do too.

[Mnemosyne]

7. It should have been the system all along.

I like the Korean and Australian systems posted in this thread. No one should ever be without medical care simply for a lack of money or denied care based on bad health.

I would gratefully pay a monthly fee so that all could have care.

In the end it is greed which has done the most harm to America.

[babylonsister]

8. Ideally, I like it. The bureacracy and middlemen

are part of the reason health insurance prices are so bloated. However, I don't honesty see the government being responsible for something of this magnitude, given their sorry history with DHS and FEMA, not to mention all other federal programs they are such failures at. And oy! The drug companies and lobbyists, and Congress, would surely fight it tooth and nail.

[Greyhound]

10. Not government run health care, just government as the sole payer

of set fees. No change to the delivery system (other than the long needed expansion), just abolition of the health insurance industry and profit motive. This, the government is very good at.

[babylonsister]

12. But someone would have to administer funds and keep track of

how much goes in vs. out. That's where it could be ripe for rip-offs or just plain bungling.

[BigBearJohn]

13. True - problems would have to be worked out -- but --

There are problems with EVERY system.

[Greyhound]

14. But the government already has the systems and capabilities in place

to carry out this task. As I said it is one of the few things they do well, add to this the huge savings that would accompany the abolition of the insurance industry, and we would spend less than we do today to cover everybody.

There is always fraud (it is rampant in the private health-care industry), and it is always overstated by those opposed to the system. The bottom line remains health-care for all and the enormous savings that that would bring.

[MockSwede]

15. MEDICAID

Medicaid already administers state/federal funds. They could continue to do this. Their overhead is less than 1% of funds delivered as healthcare versus 25 - 45 percent for non-profit, not-for-profit and for-profit insurance companies. It IS the overhead and the lack of organization that makes health care insurance such a costly proposition.

[OzarkDem]

23. and Medicare and Social Security

government does a pretty good job of running those programs at low cost.

[Telly Savalas]

24. Such systems work pretty well in every other industrialized democracy.

[Mountainman]

9. If you are told that a single payer system will make health care less

available, compare what they are saying to the fact that fewer and fewer people can afford health insurance and cannot pay full fees so by default, our current system is making health care less available.

[kineneb]

21. It is already unavailable for many

There is a vast number of people who cannot afford health care/insurance and who also make too much to qualify for charity care(Medicaid/state programs). They put things off until the problem becomes critical and far more expensive. No wonder our general health is poorer than that of the UK.

[KansDem]

16. By a strange coincidence, I've just returned from a meeting about this

I'm on my employer's benefits committee and this is the time of year we renew our health/dental insurance plans. The insurance representative lays out all the facts and figures, and color graphics before us, and we're suppose to make a decision. It all seems confusing as there are copays, percentages, buyups, and deductibles. And we're suppose to decide between two (or more) plans. Sometimes it like comparing apples and oranges. Thus is the nature of for-profit health care.

I suspect we'll be paying more again this year.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

19. A few thoughts on this.

I'd fully support governmental insurance plans, as long as they are not compulsory. All taxpayers using a single plan is inflexible, and restricts private insurers from being in a position to compete for business held solely in the hands of the government. But, offering the option to enlist as one chooses would promote a healthy competition for those who can afford to make the choice between the two options, as well as providing those who cannot afford the choice insurance plans that would make health care less of a burden than exists for them now.

The main impetus for funding such a stragety must come from the insurance industry itself, as well as the government, and address the very dicey situation of how to deal with those who the industry deems un-insurable, and how best to make their plight less so, while placing as little burden on taxpayer's shoulders as possible.

Welcome to the tightrope.

[understandinglife]

20. K&R.

The insurance industry would be highly motivated to block such a plan. In fact, you could use their resistance to it as a metric of how likely it would be to have the impact you are seeking.


Peace.

[OzarkDem]

22. Sure, Maine is trying it - Dirigo Health

The state and insurance companies participate in a common risk pool - a pot of money each contributes to for high risk patients.

http://www.dirigohealth.maine.gov/