We've talked a lot about what the problems are. What about possible solutions? 1. We need to get the cost down, because we are making our companies uncompetitive since they have to shoulder premium increases that are 3 times the inflation rate, and we will break the nation in less than 40 years. 2. We need to cover more people, everyone if possible. 3. If you lose your job and you or a covered family member has a pre-existing condition, you must be insured by somebody. We can't leave americans who are sick out there to suffer or die. The insurance should be affordable. 4. If you chose not to work, such as retiring at 60, you must be insured when you ask a company to insure you, even if you have a pre-existing condition. 5. Lifetime maximums should go away. When you are very sick and you need care, you should get the care you need (perhaps not all the care you want). This should not lead to your bankruptcy.
i dont understand the insurance industry, so i like to talk about fat people. as i have said before, in order to control obesity, we need to kill government food subsidies. these subsidies artificially cheapen unhealthy processed foods. obesity and type 2 diabetes are costing us billions. more money into public transportation creates walking cities. people are thinner in urban walking cities. we need to stop worrying about high gas prices or speculators or whatever. we need to stop pretending anyone owes us cheap gas. high gas prices have enabled our commuter lifestyles where we all spend too much time in our cars eating cheeseburgers. cheap gas also means we ship more food around instead of eating local healthy food in-season. make fun of fat people so there is a stigma and people feel like fat losers. kids should taunt fat kids and punch them occasionally. tort reform sounds like a good idea to me but i dont understand it well enough.
Ideas: 1. Every insurer offers a low cost, basic coverage option. No reimbursement for routine visits to the GP for a cold, maybe one physical per year and counseling on how to improve your health. The low cost option would offer a choice of several generic drugs to treat common ailments, such as antibiotics or cholesterol lowering meds. You get a semi private room if needed. Maybe you're treated at an older hospital instead of a newer hospital. If you want a better drug than the generic, you pay for it out of your pocket. Maybe the govt. takes bids and offers generics for free as class 1 drugs, and offers a choice of 5 class 2 non-generics for a fee, but the govt accepts bids from the drug companies and only the 5 low cost bids go on the class 2 drug schedule, at the bid price that year. Re-bid each 2 years. You get the picture. 2. Insurers also offer a "supplement policy" or maybe two or three supplement policies, which you pay higher premiums (either the company or the individual could pay) and they get you wider access to newer drugs that that tier plan covers, or newer hospitals, or it covers a private room. Etc. 3. Everybody pays for healthcare, either through the employer paying for them, they pay for a private policy, or they pay a healthcare tax and get the basic plan. Everybody has to be in the plan since there is a chance anybody could need care next week. 4. All healthcare providers publish their pricelist for their services. This is so everybody can comparison shop for services. A provider cannot charge one person more than another for the same service. 5. If insurers must accept applicants, even ones who got laid off and have a pre-existing condition (and were not previously paying premiums to THAT insurance company), then perhaps they price their policies to an expected loss level, and they pay premiums to the govt., who re-insures the heath insurance companies. This would compensate them for eliminating lifetime maximums also. Maybe some of the payroll taxes collected for healthcare go into this re-insurance pool of money, to pay for the catastrophic illnesses. 6. What the dr. says will go, as far as treatment. There should not be a hoard of ins. company individuals denying treatment that dr. prescribed, nor a hoard of folks in the dr. office trying to deal with the hoard at the insurance company. 6A. Dr. cannot refer patients to testing facilities they own. Dr. cannot receive compensation from drug companies for prescribing their drugs. Dr. should not have conflict of interest in treating their patients. 7. Standard forms and definition of terms. Everyone should use the same form. This would allow eventually to Automate this as it is possible. That's a few ideas.
I think John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) pretty much nailed it. When my wife sent me a hyperlink to this article I thought "What does this hippie know?" I was surprised that I agree with all his points. Link Here are my favorite parts.
Rewriting the laws on malpractice lawsuits will also save millions per year. We waste tons of money on healthcare both as individuals as well as corporations and insurance companies paying ridiculous amounts for care that are largely due to the gigantic malpractice insurance premiums that doctors have to pay. The book "Nudge" supports the idea of an option to "opt out" of the option to sue your doctor for malpractice and thus receiving much more affordable care. I don't know if that's the best way to do it, but something should be done. I mean, yeah, it sucks that you got an infection because the doctor left a sponge in you, and yes, you should be compenstated for your losses stemming from negligence, but theres no way you should receive hundreds of thousands to millions for something like that.
It depends. If that sponge caused a person to become permanently bedridden at the age of 20, it could cost millions to care for him for the rest of his life. If it just cost him an extra surgery to remove it, and he's thereafter fine, then a far smaller settlement is in order. Some judgements are unreasonable, to be sure so a balance must be found between the fundamental right to sue and the sometimes ridiculous amounts awarded.
I fully agree that life care costs are owed in your example. If negligence put the person in that situation then the tort feasor is obligated to pay. Tort reform doesn't take that away. But juries will award all of the costs for life care plus 5 or 10 million dollars in pain and suffering and then decide to send a message by tacking on punitive damages for 3 times the amount of general damages. That's part of where the abuses lie. There need to be limits on general damages and reserve punitive damages for the only the most flagrant grossly negligent situations.
I think care costs should definitely be 100% covered. It's the inflated pain and suffering, punitive damages, etc, that I think is often excessive.
Tort reform is not a meaningful solution to the health care problem. You mention saving millions, but the problem is up in the hundreds of billions. Tort reform has been enacted in over half the states and studies show it has been ineffective in blunting the growing cost of health care, which has been growing at least twice as fast as general inflation. Tort Reform: Show Us Results | Mesothelioma and the Politics of Asbestos Litigation
