Why the Federal Government MUST step in and deal with healthcare.

[PaulaGem]

The current system of health care is just one more way that the Corporate Citizen takes advantage of the PEOPLE from which the government theoretically gets its right to govern. It is the responsibility of the government to put an end to Corporations run amuck - they are the vehicle that siphons off the money the gives the World Government its power base.

The primacy of property rights taught by some on this thread is a red herring. The "unalienables" have nothing to do with property. Here is a great statement about why healthcare costs are spiraling out of control in this country:



I’ve heard it said that hospitals have to treat you whether you have insurance or not. That’s not true. An emergency room has a legal obligation to stabilize you and that’s all. Having an insurance card can make the difference between life and death.

That being said, I’d like to devote the rest of this article to exploring the question of whether one should purchase the most comprehensive health care policy or purchase only cheaper catastrophic coverage. There is an valid argument supporting each position.

Because of the nature of our system, insurance companies will continue to raise your rates until they have priced themselves out of your budget and are forced into either joining the nation’s 47 million uninsured, or back into the market to shop for a new company.

It’s been speculated that insurance companies do this because they have determined statistically that you are more likely to use your policy after a certain number of years with them then you would have in the initial time of coverage.. Whether or not that’s true is open for debate. Whether or not they will continuously raise your rates, is not. They will

If they raise your rates to the point where you can not afford to insure with them any longer and the rates for other companies seem appealing, be aware that if you have used your insurance for any major health condition, from heart problems to cancer, to even depression, you may not be insurable with another company. You may not be able to switch to another company no matter how much your present insurer may increase its rates.



http://artitude.com/ghost_writer/category/health-insurance/


CORPORATISM is the real enemy - not "socialism" "communism" "nanny state" or any other of the whipping boys so often used on this forum.

[angelatc]

The GOP depends on voters like you.

Health care didn't race to unaffordibility until the government started paying the bills. It now pays 50% of the costs, thanks to Medicare, MedicAid and the prescription drug program.

Go take an economics class and figure out why.

If you want socialized medicine, why not move to Canada and leave the non-whiny Americans alone?

[LibertyEagle]

Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state — whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts — inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.

Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.

Leftists usually understand how wartime provides politically connected corporations with high profits and cushy contracts. What is more often neglected is that the history of the American domestic welfare and regulatory state also corresponds closely to the rise of corporatism. It is no coincidence.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp

[ItsTime]

Yeah the government does need to do something about healthcare, they need to end medicare and medicaid ASAP. Then we all can sit back and watch the cost of healthCARE go down.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah the government does need to do something about healthcare, they need to end medicare and medicaid ASAP. Then we all can sit back and watch the cost of healthCARE go down.

A few points:

Rep Pete Stark(D-CA) who is the chairman of the Healthcare Way and Means committee, was on C-SPAN this morning.

He couldn't answer the questions on costs, ambiguously on which taxes and fees will be added/increased. Stark indicated in will be about $1 Trillion in costs. Both health care questioners from DC based news orgs, both indicated it will be more.

Some points to thinks about in addition:

1.) All startup companies, small companies, Mom n Pop local businesses will raise insurance payments to the point that any employee will Opt for the US government medical care plan. This is being done to save the cost to the small business owners/financiers.

2.) Stark stated that ALL Americans, from the poorest to the wealthiest will pay into the US government National Care.

3.) Current estimated costs is around $1.6 Trillion

4.) Insurance companies - Depending what is more profitable Private or Government ... will price fix BTW, Name one Health Care Insurance giant that has lost money in their FY earnings in the past half century? answer: NONE

5.) Analysis indicated that 17-20 Million Americans, still, will NOT be covered with US Government mandated Health Care.

5.) Dangerous POLL results NYT/CBS:

72% Support health insurance plan
56% are willing to pay more in Taxes for universal health care. :rolleyes:


No one has the backbone to stand up to the real problem that have put us into this mess, as other have stated in this thread.

The American people are ignorant and fools...

[PaulaGem]

1.) All startup companies, small companies, Mom n Pop local businesses will raise insurance payments to the point that any employee will Opt for the US government medical care plan. This is being done to save the cost to the small business owners/financiers.

Most of those listed don't provide insurance for employees anyhow - or if they do it is already unaffordable. This point is moot.

[PaulaGem]

Yeah the government does need to do something about healthcare, they need to end medicare and medicaid ASAP. Then we all can sit back and watch the cost of healthCARE go down.

I don't get it - many doctors won't even TREAT medicare and medicaid patients because the reimbursement is too low. It is the private insurance companies and the health care corporations that are driving up the cost of health care.

[jjockers]

I don't get it - many doctors won't even TREAT medicare and medicaid patients because the reimbursement is too low. It is the private insurance companies and the health care corporations that are driving up the cost of health care.

Prove it.

Insurance premiums are going up. Does that necessarily mean that insurance companies are driving up the cost of healthcare?

Here's the reality:

The cost of health care is going up, so the premiums for insurance have to go up in order for the insurance companies to pay for the services.

The health insurance industry is not out to steal your money. They do, however, have to make a profit or at least break even, or they will cease to exist.

Insurance companies make, on average, $0.03 / $1.00 premium. That's 3% profit. 87% of your premium dollar goes towards paying hospitals, doctors, etc. The health insurance industry is responsible for just 13% of your premium.

How exactly are they then the major reasons for the increase in medical costs?

For reference, here are two links regarding health insurance profit at $0.03 / $1.00 premium collected.

http://www.calhealthplans.org/documents/HCC05_TheHCPremiumDollar.pdf

http://coburn.senate.gov/oversight/?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4fd7e7b5-4ed8-4806-87c2-951a37c2af76

Note, in particular, this line:


While overall health
spending has grown by 7 percent annually, administrative costs
have grown by only 2 percent a year. Because they comprise the
largest portion of the premium dollar, escalating medical costs
– such as physician and hospital services and
pharmaceuticals – account for 90 percent of the growth in
health insurance premiums while administrative costs
account for just 10 percent of premium growth.

[jjockers]

If you'd rather not read the short pdf, here's a representative screenshot:

http://img199.yfrog.com/img199/7582/administrativeexpenses.jpg

[ItsTime]

dont get me wrong I am also against the insurance companies. I believe insurance is nothing but a form of subsidy. And that is why it is failing. Heathcare costs will go up so insurance needs to go up, then in turn heathcare costs go up, then in turn insurance goes up and so on.

That is what is happening right now, so heathcare/insurance is out of the reach of a lot of Americans. If we got rid of medicare/aid/insurance then the free market would adjust the cost of healthCARE.

[jjockers]

dont get me wrong I am also against the insurance companies. I believe insurance is nothing but a form of subsidy. And that is why it is failing. Heathcare costs will go up so insurance needs to go up, then in turn heathcare costs go up, then in turn insurance goes up and so on.

That is what is happening right now, so heathcare/insurance is out of the reach of a lot of Americans. If we got rid of medicare/aid/insurance then the free market would adjust the cost of healthCARE.

Insurance is an option available so as to spread (NOT reduce) your monetary risk of catastrophic (or not so catastrophic) illness. That's its sole purpose. Where it is today is a different thing altogether, and largely due to the perception that all health care ought to be provided by health insurance.

In no way is it a "subsidy".

In regards to your last line:

"Healthcare costs will go up ..."

Stop there. Why should healthcare costs go up? That's where the cycle should stop. Introduce/encourage competition in the healthcare market. Transparency will then come as competitors see it as a way to get more market share.

"Heathcare costs will go up so insurance needs to go up"

Yup, if healthcare costs go up, then insurance premiums have to reflect that increase.

"Heathcare costs will go up so insurance needs to go up, then in turn heathcare costs go up, "

Wait, why would healthcare costs "in turn" go up due to increased premiums? Health insurance premium does not drive up the cost of health services. It's the other way around. Health service costs drive up the cost of health insurance premiums.

The cycle really looks like this:

Healthcare cost goes up --> premiums go up

and that's it. Just stop healthcare costs from going up, and we're fine.

Why would you want to "get rid of" health insurance? It's an option that ought to be available for people who want to spread their economic risk in regards to health.

Corporate healthcare (i.e. insurance linked to employer) is a different story -- in that, I agree. Get rid of that.

[PaulaGem]

According to the recently released HCAN report, “Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market“:

In the past 13 years, more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets but haven’t delivered on promises of increased efficiency. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets in the United States are now highly concentrated, and insurers are thriving in the anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits and paying out huge CEO salaries.


http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/



Some activities just can not be governed by the bottom line. As a society we have idealized and inappropriately applied the business model as a good measure of excellence in all areas. We applied it to medical care and it produced the disaster we have now.

We deserve a little fun, so imagine the result of regulating some of our other activities by using a bottom line approach: child care, teaching, sex (how much per quarter hour, Dearie?), enjoying nature, storytelling, operating a museum or a police or fire department, dating, fighting a war. I'm sure you can think of more.

Eliminating the business model from health care--as we should--does NOT mean abandoning measurement of efficiency and quality. We absolutely need close monitoring of an operation this large and complex. We will simply measure by something other than profits. In fact, we already use many such measurements, for example, length of hospital stay by diagnosis, infant mortality, hospital acquired infection, surgical complications, turn around time for some urgent laboratory tests, and even customer satisfaction. Now, those are significant measurements of quality care. If you combine a few of those, you can get a good picture of the overall efficiency of the system. And of course a health care system needs to monitor how much it is spending to do the job.

When we allow our health care system to be organized by Health Insurance Corporations they do NOT focus on getting the most bang for the buck, but on getting the most bucks out of the system.

OK, here's your ammunition, the brutal rules of operation for a health insurance corporation:

-- Health Insurance corporations exist to earn money. The only reason they show any humanitarian or charitable trait is to improve their public image, so they will be allowed to continue existing.

-- Health Insurance companies make a profit by collecting premiums and then returning as little of them as possible to their customers.

-- Health Insurance companies are Profit Oriented, not People Oriented, so decisions about your care are governed by their bottom line. They don't care if you stay healthy, suffer or die, only whether it costs them money.

-- Health Insurance companies HATE for you to get sick--but only because it costs them money.

-- Health Insurance companies search for ways to stop your insurance coverage if you become seriously ill.

-- Health Insurance companies prefer that you die suddenly rather than have a long, expensive illness with a good chance of recovery.

-- Denying or delaying your claims increases their profits, so they do it constantly.

-- The only useful function of health insurance is to spread the cost of serious or catastrophic illness among many people. It shouldn't cost 20% of the premium to accomplish that.

I'll try to keep this short because we need to be making some phone calls, faxes, emails...

These facts show that health insurance companies are not motivated or equipped to give us the kind of health care we want, need, and deserve. As corporations, their main purpose is to generate profit for the benefit of their owners, stockholders, and executives. That built-in bias should disqualify them from organizing, planning, or providing health care. Any plan that they offer will be in their own best interest rather than that of the public, or it will waste everyone's time figuring out if it is a truly neutral proposal.
The single useful function of health insurance is to spread the financial risk of major medical events over many people. Since these companies do not have our interest at heart, they should be restricted to their single useful function--insuring risk.



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/19/744526/-Seven-Powerful-Laws-of-Health-Insurance-(or-more)[/QUOTE] (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/19/744526/-Seven-Powerful-Laws-of-Health-Insurance-(or-more))


No health care reform proposal by any presidential candidate addresses the failure of the private health insurance industry, characterized principally by rising premiums and decreasing benefits. Premium increases of 87 percent over 6 years outpace both cost-of-living and median family income increases.

Promotion of incremental reform demonstrates lack of political will - the same failure to confront corporate profit-taking by insurance and pharmaceutical industries that wrote Medicare prescription drug reform with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines.

Commercial health insurance is the 800-pound gorilla, responsible for 20 to 30% of health care dollars siphoned to excessive administrative costs, lobbying, marketing, CEO salaries and profit-taking - $1.4 billion stock options to former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire; $30 billion annual after-tax health insurance profits, plus $32 billion insurance underwriting and marketing costs, revealed by the McKinsey Group Report of 2007.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/09/failure-profit-centered-health-insurance/


Michael Moore raises the question in Sicko: why exactly are we tolerating for-profit health insurance companies that make money by denying us the health care that we've paid for?

What sense does that make?

I recall Luis Gutierrez (who, here's my prediction, will run again in 2008 for Congress) at a town hall meeting in 1993 or 1994 on public television called for abolishing the insurance companies and the crowd, previously passive and polite in that public television way, erupted in applause. The host (probably John Callaway) asked for calm and then asked the insurance company spokesperson to justify the industry's existence. "What do you do?" he asked.

"Spread risk" was the answer.

That's it.

The health insurance guy could have said "suck resources out of health care like a parasitic middleman to build skyscrapers, run commercials and make our investors rich" which would have been more honest, but the economic basis for the health insurance industry's existence is "to spread risk."

Well, you spread risk by getting a bunch of people in the same big pool. So if there are 5 people in a small business who are paying for their own health care and one of them gets cancer or gets hit by a bus, then those 5 people have a lot of money to pay. The goal is to get 10,000 people in a big pool so when someone gets cancer, the cost is absorbed and spread out among everyone.

I've got a big pool we should all get into: Americans.

http://djwinfo.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-do-we-keep-for-profit-health.html



So, now that United Health (NYSE:UNH) CEO Dr. William McGuire gets $1.6 BILLION dollars worth of options (NOT including salary), I guess we all have an idea of where all our rising health insurance...

YouTube - Health Insurance Profits Booming with $1.6 BILLION Paydays! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQug_zheW9c)

[jjockers]

Thanks Paula. I'll respond regarding each of your sources.

For your first quote:

Here's the 2007 health insurance country-wide market share:

http://www.naic.org/documents/research_stats_market_share_health_sample.pdf

Scroll to pages 6, 7 and 8.

There are 125 health insurance companies listed, with the largest market share -- 11.7% -- belonging to United Health

11.7% is far from a monopoly, and in fact there is a lot of health insurance competition. Note that the top 20 health insurance companies only make up 60% of the total health insurance market share.

Oh, and yes, for-profit insurance companies pay their CEOs a lot of money. That's not unique to the insurance industry. Happens in most large for-profit businesses.

With that said, there are many not for profit health insurance companies that you can choose from. Again, that is and should be your choice.

---

For your second quote:

In regards to the list following

"OK, here's your ammunition, the brutal rules of operation for a health insurance corporation:"

I agree with every bulletted statement he makes. I even agree with his final conclusion:

"The single useful function of health insurance is to spread the financial risk of major medical events over many people. Since these companies do not have our interest at heart, they should be restricted to their single useful function--insuring risk."

Insurance companies are not around to 'provide' healthcare. They only serve to spread risk, period. People have the misconception that health insurance companies are supposed to provide healthcare -- that misconception is at the heart of the problem. Insurance is a business, and provides a good option for those who wish to spread the economic impact of catastrophes. It's not an evil empire out to steal your money.

Do keep in mind, again, that not-for-profit health insurance companies exist.

--
For your third quote:

Please see the last link I provided. Insurance companies are responsible for 13% of your premium, and 90% of the increase in premium is due to the increase in health services. Only 10% is due to the big bad evil greedy insurance companies.

The DailyKos author spouts incorrect numbers, as so many often do, regarding the impact insurance companies have on premium trend. While premium is trending at 10-12% per year, that's 90% due to the increase in medical costs, not greedy insurance company profits.

Please do not make the assumption that insurance companies are driving high prices merely because they are increasing premiums. It's imperative that we dig a bit deeper, and find the reason for increased premiums.

The price of healthcare can be reduced by encouraging competition in the healthcare market. That is the best solution. It can be accomplished by removing the employer-employee-insurance relationship set up by the federal government many years ago.

--

For your fourth quote:

Michael Moore is not too far off, except for his last statement. If we all were to join one insurance plan, then there is no competition. Competition is the method by which prices are reduced. It's completely backwards to suggest that putting everyone under 1 insurance company -- namely the federal government -- is going to reduce cost. Instead, prices will skyrocket due to the factors I mentioned here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=196709&page=3

For your last quote:

CEOs are paid a lot, yes. So? Switch companies if you don't like that. It's business. Those people are in high demand, and demand high salaries. I suggest you find yourself a not-for-profit health insurance company. It works like you'd like it to, but does not steal from the rest of your country-folk.

[MelissaWV]

lol @ the Aetna ad at the bottom of the page.

[someperson]

I don't believe the federal government should intervene in any market, let alone healthcare. However, this does not mean you cannot petition your own state to create a universal healthcare system. I don't believe it's a good idea, but if you wish for a government managed system, it should be done at the state level with state collected funds. At least as long as our nation operates under the current constitutional system, this is the best way to achieve your goal, and the effort required to get even a single-payer system in your own state is infinitely easier than attempting to petition for and implement it nationwide.

50 different, competing systems of healthcare, from fully private in some states to single-payer in others, would improve the situation dramatically, compared to the oligopoly of HMOs, or a monopoly by the federal government. Over time, states would naturally adopt the policies that were efficient and effective in other states, and cease the policies that failed.

[Brian4Liberty]

Prove it.

Insurance premiums are going up. Does that necessarily mean that insurance companies are driving up the cost of healthcare?


Deja vue, all over again.

Every time there is a thread about insurance, you show up to defend the insurance industry. I must conclude that you work in the industry, and are acting as a lobbyist here.

For example:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2156631&postcount=17

[jjockers]

Brian,

That's a reasonable conclusion. Wrong, but reasonable. By the same token, those who support liberty on these forums are actually just lobbyists for liberty. Evil lobbyists!

I do defend the insurance industry against so many fallacies spread here and elsewhere. If that makes me a lobbyist, I want my paycheck! :D

You can believe anything you want about myself. It doesn't refute anything I have said.

[TGGRV]

Most of those listed don't provide insurance for employees anyhow - or if they do it is already unaffordable. This point is moot.
Thanks the government for it. If employers wouldn't be required to provide insurance, the premiums would be much lower because the insurance companies wouldn't have guaranteed customers.

http://erichilliard.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/healthcare-solution-no-insurance-for-anyone/



Obviously there is a lot of talk in the media about health care coverage for every American; with the basic premise being “health insurance” for everyone. Is health insurance for everyone really the solution though? Knowing people who have personally experienced the horrors of universal coverage as residents of countries with such coverage, and being an advocate for free-market solutions, I can’t put my support behind that as the answer. I also cannot support a governmental “competitor” in the market. This will eventually lead to universal care as any “competitor” that can subsidize its losses with tax dollars can undercut everyone until they put them right out of business, thus resulting in a single-payer system. What if the solution to affordable health care was really the complete opposite direction we are all looking now? What if the solution to affordable health care for everyone, was insurance for no one?

I can almost hear the sound of people scratching their heads as they wonder how no insurance is a solution so allow me to explain. Rather than explore the history of how we came to our current state of health care and insurance (there are already plenty of people who have done that, just google it if you’re curious), We’re going to look at some of the possible outcomes if we fundamentally changed the way we deal with health insurance and health care.

First, a dramatic dose of deregulation would need to occur that would no longer require businesses to provide health insurance for employees (including governmental employees) who work over 40 hours a week (this varies state to state with some states requiring as little as 20 hrs). This would result in tremendous savings for businesses who would then be able to expand, hire more employees, and pay higher wages. We could probably put a significant dent in our currently growing unemployment numbers, as new businesses are started with the cost of starting a business being significantly lower than what it currently is.

You’re probably still wondering what lowering costs for businesses by eliminating health insurance has to do with keeping health care affordable. This is the part that health insurance companies aren’t going to like very much because their profits will drop significantly with so few people being covered. Because health insurance companies will no longer have their tens of millions of “guaranteed” customers who work over 40 hours a week, they will be forced to lower their prices to a level at which people can afford insurance, though many may still choose not to purchase it as the lower number of insured people would also likely affect the affordability of doctors offices and hospitals (a catastrophic health insurance may be all that many families need).

Because doctors offices and hospitals would not be able to count on the “guaranteed” insured either, they would be forced to lower their prices to a level the market can support as well. So, instead of a doctors visit costing $100-$150, it would be nearer to the cost of a higher end co-pay. Instead of an aspirin costing $50 during a hospital stay, it might only cost 50-cents. In order to make this workable though, there would also need to be a significant amount of tort reform to keep fraudulent lawsuits out of courtrooms and malpractice insurance prices affordable for those in the health care industry.

The problem with the current plans that are being presented is that they try to control the cost of insurance instead of allowing the market to control the cost of care. Affordable health insurance isn’t really the answer (though I think this would bring that about as well). Unless we deregulate and allow the market to control the cost of health services, we will continue to see prices rise uncontrollably.

(I would be most appreciative of any feedback on this proposed solution be it positive or negative. I know we will likely never see this because there is too powerful of an insurance lobby in Washington and “less is more” is not the way government operates these days.)

It's amusing to me that the government created this mess and people want to give them even more money to spread out to the companies with the strongest lobby. lol

YouTube - A Short Course in Brain Surgery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4u5x9XAsAs)
BTW, this is how general/single payer actually works. In Europe, if you want great healthcare, you go to private clinics that don't work with the government AT ALL. It's all out of pocket. Otherwise you can wait in queue lines for hours.

And another thing, we, Europeans don't know how to get rid of all these programs - parties against welfare won the last elections in most countries - and you want to implement them. lmao

[jsu718]

Instead of getting into the health insurance business, how about this for an alternative... the government pays the bill for the malpractice insurance. Since they don't seem to want to cap the lawsuit money the malpractice insurance costs account for a huge portion of the health care costs. Without that people could generally not worry about having health insurance at all and just pay their doctors in cash.

[The_Orlonater]

Of course, there are many things the government should do. Here are some of my ideas:

1) Repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985(EMTALA)
2) Repeal the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabilty Act of 1996(HIPPA)
3) Have a federal law decreeing that the States cannot issue mandate benefits,mandate gaurantees, etc.
4) The Blues should not have this tax exept status while competing with other insurance companies. What we could do is raise taxes or lower taxes. The point is, everyone should be taxed equally.
5)Gradual work on abolishing Medicare and Medicade( along with SCHIPP if possible)
6) Tort reform, now! How do you think John Edwards made all of his money?
7) Eliminate the Food and Drug Administration. They procrastinate when it comes to getting new medicine on the market.
8) Legalize marijuana!

[Krugerrand]

Of course, there are many things the government should do. Here are some of my ideas:

1) Repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985(EMTALA)
2) Repeal the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabilty Act of 1996(HIPPA)
3) Have a federal law decreeing that the States cannot issue mandate benefits,mandate gaurantees, etc.
4) The Blues should not have this tax exept status while competing with other insurance companies. What we could do is raise taxes or lower taxes. The point is, everyone should be taxed equally.
5)Gradual work on abolishing Medicare and Medicade( along with SCHIPP if possible)
6) Tort reform, now! How do you think John Edwards made all of his money?
7) Eliminate the Food and Drug Administration. They procrastinate when it comes to getting new medicine on the market.
8) Legalize marijuana!

Until that grand day when all income taxes are abolished, I'd add expanding Tax Exempt Health Savings Accounts. I'd let people donate from their account to another's. Individuals who build up sizable accounts would be generous towards those who are unfortunate and need assistance.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course, there are many things the government should do. Here are some of my ideas:

1) Repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985(EMTALA)
2) Repeal the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabilty Act of 1996(HIPPA)
3) Have a federal law decreeing that the States cannot issue mandate benefits,mandate gaurantees, etc.
4) The Blues should not have this tax exept status while competing with other insurance companies. What we could do is raise taxes or lower taxes. The point is, everyone should be taxed equally.
5)Gradual work on abolishing Medicare and Medicade( along with SCHIPP if possible)
6) Tort reform, now! How do you think John Edwards made all of his money?
7) Eliminate the Food and Drug Administration. They procrastinate when it comes to getting new medicine on the market.
8) Legalize marijuana!


You have a point. However, you should understand that the Establishment benefits from these things. The reforms you pine for must be FORCED, for the State (TPTB) will not give up its authority nicely. :p

[acptulsa]

The insurance lobby is indeed powerful and its members are indeed profitable as hell. And if you think they have no voice in Washington, take a look at the history of auto liability insurance and consider how much of that is about health care costs. Simply, unaffordable health care is insanely good for them, and that's no small part of the reason why they supported Medicare/Medicaid (together with the government taking the worst risks out of the market, allowing them to save money without reducing rates). And the Orlonater is absolutely right about the existing tort system working against reasonable rates as well.

But I'm surprised to see no mention of Big Pharma in a perusal of this thread. That's a huge piece of the puzzle. Three aspects to the price spiral, and government is in the middle of each--and we do indeed have examples of failed state-run health care from Eastern Europe and all over the globe...

[Original_Intent]

I'm sorry could someone help me? I must be lost I was trying to get to Liberty Forest and seem to have gotten lost - is this Socialist Forest?

[The_Orlonater]

Until that grand day when all income taxes are abolished, I'd add expanding Tax Exempt Health Savings Accounts. I'd let people donate from their account to another's. Individuals who build up sizable accounts would be generous towards those who are unfortunate and need assistance.

This is a good point, although my fourth point is toward tax equality.

[theoakman]

the only reason private insurers are jacking up the cost of Healthcare is because the Federal Government is requiring companies to provide their employees with insurance through force. Furthermore, a lot of these private insurance companies have resorted to down right fraudulent practices at the expense of physicians and patients alike. Physicians have responded by price gouging in order to try to make their money back. The problem is, the insurance companies have no respect for the law, and your asshole congressmen let them break it on a daily basis because the insurance companies regularly contribute to their campaigns. Government is the problem...not the solution.

If you want national health care, then adopt Singapore's system...not some stupid single payer system.