oh boy... public option for U.S. health care?

[ar81]

Originally Posted by rei

i think you are splitting hairs ar81. no competition, yes that is true if what you mean is that the goal is to be healthy (i don't think the private insurers would agree with you that there can be no competition for this). when there are more than a few options for ways to finance medical expenses, it (ideally) creates better deals for the customer. example - two clothing stores competing for business, both stores will start to have sale prices so they can each try to attract the most customers. this may not be a perfect example, but it is the same principle...

americans should be able to compare the rates, benefits, and legal issues (like how the company can deny a claim) of all the health insurance plans, but as long as there are only private options, there will not be effective cost containment for patients. what i was referring to is a greater number of options, not only having to choose from the private companies.

besides, sadly, america looks at almost every service as having a potential to create a profit, so competition becomes involved between the businesses. i was not talking about competition among individuals who want health insurance.

about the Costa Rican option - i don't want to lie about where i live so i can get health care treatment. several countries will allow visitors to use the medical services without any of that registration stuff. England and France both allow this, though i am sure they have a few stipulations.

The problem in health economics is that having good information on pricing is not a valid assumption. This is why public services are better than private ones.

I mentioned Costa Rica because of a cheap price and relative proximity. Going to Europe is a bit more expensive. What matters is that Americans have options outside of US.

[aggie]

but american citizens shouldn't have to spend any money at all to obtain healthcare out of their own country because they can't get it here!

bad enough elderly people are bussing into canada to get drugs cheaper that are manufactured here and there is some bs of not being able to reimport them back here for our citizens????

you don't find people flying into to our country for better healthcare.

as it is, even people with financing go outside of our country for medical alternatives.

something definitely wrong with this picture.

[ar81]

Well, indeed Costa Rica enjoys "medical tourism" from US and other countries.
I am just passing the tip to benefit from the public system.
You see Nicaraguans going there to get health care, as well as Americans.

[SomeRandomGuy]

As far as I see it, the healthcare reform being discussed in the US right now is very minor when compared to the level of reform that really needs to happen. Unfortunately, it is going to be hard to get even this watered down reform passed, so I can't even imagine the backlash if someone were to try to really do complete healthcare reform.

Personally, I find it disgusting that we have a for-profit healthcare system. As I understand it, we are the only developed nation with such a system. I believe we should have a non-profit healthcare system like other nations have. Contrary to what you may have heard from the media, non-profit healthcare would not mean socialist medicine or government ran healthcare. There are countries with non-profit healthcare insurance provided by private insurers. That model should satisfy those afraid that a government ran healthcare system will drive us into socialism.

If we as a country insist on keeping for profit healthcare, then I believe we need to demand changes to create real competition in the industry. I truly believe that is the purpose of the public option, but it has been turned into something different by the detractors. I don't think the public option is the best way to create competition, though, but it may be more practical to get that passed that other legislation.

Some people argue that there is currently competition in the healthcare insurance industry, and those arguments aren't entirely wrong. The problem is that it is the wrong type of competition. For the system to work, the end user of the service needs the ability to choose their own insurance and medical providers. In the system we have now, however, the majority of healthcare insurance is offered through employers. Many employers offer only a few options, some offer only a single option. The options they provide to their employees are based on what is cheapest for them, not what is best for the employees or which provider will give the best service. Also, since most employers only allow coverage changes annually, there is a significant delay in the response an employee can give to poor coverage.

For example, I work for a Fortune 500 company with more than 65,000 employees worldwide. When I signed up for my 2009 coverage, I had 3 options for Medical Coverage. If I decided today that the company I chose was not filling my needs, I would have to wait until November to change my coverage, and it would not take effect until January 1st. Even then, I would only have two other companies to choose from. That isn't exactly the type of choice that empowers consumers.

As long as the majority of competition among insurance carriers is based on driving down costs to appeal to more businesses, then the system will continue to be broken. Even with that, costs are increasing dramatically, but most of that is past onto the employees so the businesses have little incentive to fight it. Individuals need to be able to choose the company which provides the best coverage for them. I believe that would create the right type of competition, to improve service and reduce costs.

Obviously we aren't going to see significant healthcare reform anytime soon. Will the currently proposed reforms be an improvement and start us in the right direction? I don't know. What I do know is that the current system is broken, and it will not be completely fixed until we as consumers, voters and citizens demand that it be fixed.

[John Tedder]

We need the public option. Its time has come. The insurance companies need some real competition. It's sort of like the Bailey Building & Loan in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." If Mr. Potter wouldn't give you a loan, George Bailey would. Where is Jimmy Stewart when you need him?

If nothing else, people need a place to go where they don't have to go crawling to the ABC insurance company begging for insurance.

I think it is also important to have a public option because anything less will be a defeat for the president and the democratic party. The republicans will be jumping up and down with joy if they can keep the public option out of the bill.

I wrote a blog post about this a few weeks ago, right after President Obama gave his speech to Congress.

» We Need Healthcare Reform Now John Tedder's Random Notes

Thank you.

[Grindin]

forgive my ignorance, but can someone please explain to me why allowing insurers to compete across state lines WOULDN'T increase competition therefore forcing these insurers to drop prices. Thanks.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Grindin

forgive my ignorance, but can someone please explain to me why allowing insurers to compete across state lines WOULDN'T increase competition therefore forcing these insurers to drop prices. Thanks.

Because they compete to collect your money, seizing the almost imperfect information on pricing, but they do not compete to pay your money back when you need it. Their inventory is money, and money can't add value to itself, so the only source of profit is to collect money from you and try not pay it back.

[Grindin]

I realize that point (thanks) but that doesn't mean that prices for plans wouldn't decrease. The way I see it it would just meant the insurers would have to keep the same percentage of denied claims to keep the same profit margin even though it would be lower a lower profit.

[rei]

so then they can either be willing to accept a more reasonable profit margin or they can go out of business. that's a major positive effect of a public option.

if people can't let go of greed, then some regulations are totally in order. ideally they would just release that hoarding tendency on their own, of course.

[aggie]

insurance companies don't want to pay back NOW.

yes, it is all about greed...we have become a society that makes most of it's money and creates most of it's jobs with healthcare and the misery of it's people...that, and war....

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Grindin

I realize that point (thanks) but that doesn't mean that prices for plans wouldn't decrease. The way I see it it would just meant the insurers would have to keep the same percentage of denied claims to keep the same profit margin even though it would be lower a lower profit.

That's a problem. It is a system that guarantees denials, it seeks denials to make profit. The disadvantage of having only privat insurers is that they may reach agreements, to raise prices. It is called "alliance".

The system is designed to make the pay back undesirable.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by aggie

insurance companies don't want to pay back NOW.

yes, it is all about greed...we have become a society that makes most of it's money and creates most of it's jobs with healthcare and the misery of it's people...that, and war....

In the 1980s, James Dunningan, US expert in strategic simulations wrote in a book that military soending had a detrimental effect on the economy and he said that a war could lead US to bankruptcy.

So the idea that war helps the economy is a myth. It is a business of paying for toys that turn resources to produce ashes and corpses.