Hmmm, Ok you folks that undertand Heathcare economics, Here is an idea

[Perky]

The economics of the Insurance market involves mitigation of risk. The biggest cost for insurers is actually hospitalization for extended periods of time.

If there was a mandate that everyone would pay into a pool for Catastophic coverage it would substantially reduce the risk borne by insurers and it would charge the dynamics on health care dynamics, SMall comp
Everyone would be reuired to pay into the pool but it would be backed by a millionaire's surtax.

Revenues would certainly go down for the insurance but cost would go down more.

COuple that with Insurance reform (must carry, no caps, can't be cut, portability) and it becomes a formulation that everyone understands. Preserves choice, reduces costm frees up capital for business and unyokes people to make a job change.


thoughts?

[masuki bance]

1. How does the cost go down? nt

[Perky]

2. Because you are takiung away from the insurance providers

their biggest cost element. Paying for catastrhophic illness.

[masuki bance]

5. That doesn't lower the cost of the services. nt

[Perky]

6. No it doesn't but it does take that cost off the backs od the insurance companies and puts it

on the back of the federal solution. THat cost can be borne through Payroll dedusction and a surtax.

The isureranc companies would pay less to the underying providers far less.

[masuki bance]

7. What would cause them to be able to pay less to the providers?

Nothing you have described addresses that.

[Perky]

10. The market place battle is not over revenue it is over profits,

If you reduce their risks and give them a means to get to the 40 Million prices for permiums will fall,

[masuki bance]

14. You are all over the place, I asked how does what you propose lower costs,

which is something you claimed in your OP. You haven't addressed that. I think you may have your terms confused.

[Perky]

15. WHich costs?

the cost of insurances? or medical costs more generally?

[Perky]

16. ...

[wryter2000]

3. Just because insurance company costs go down...

doesn't mean the premiums go down. They'd keep the rates the same and pocket the extra profit.

[Perky]

4. Not if they stand to gain a new market with 40 Million more customers.

Notif therier are co-ops that can buy like the fortune 500 companies do.

[Perky]

13. There wil be a highly competitive marketplace for the 40 million

That competition will drive down prices because people with ability to move will move,

[iamjoy]

8. Like Medicare A For Everyone?

Is that what you mean?

You mean a tax on young healthy people to help pay for old sick people?


That's how it will be spun.

[Perky]

9. No.

Anyone who has a bout with cancer or gets knifed by a carjacker or gets hit by a drunk driver

[LiberalFighter]

11. The best way to totally eliminate the risk borne by insurers would be to...

put the money in a fund administered under control of congressional legislation.

Don't let the insurers touch the money.

The best way to require everyone to have insurance is not mandating the citizens to buy it but to provide it to everyone. Those that are employed or receive any type of income to pay a tax instead of paying insurance premiums to the insurance company.

[Perky]

12. I don't disgree, but the problem is political will

and as much we may want single payer, it is not politically viable and the fight is not politically expedient.