patrick.net

You & I are paying into Medicare, but so did the seniors for many years. And they pay premiums for parts B and D (over $130 per month together) now that they receive the benefits. The highest cost of the Medicare program is the Advantage programs (part C) where you and I are subsidizing big insurance such as humana & kaiser to the tune of millions of dollars in order for them to deny healthcare via Medicare HMO's. We could save a shitload of money if we stopped funding those insurers - but they have multiple lobbyists for every lawmaker and heavily fund our politco's campaigns.

Catastrophic care would only work if healthcare was affordable. Which it isn't. So people would continue to remain untreated until their health condition is life threatening, and then the costs would be exorbiant.

Of course, no single reform can work in vacuum. We also need other pieces working together:

1. Tort reform - this should lower malpractice insurance premium
2. HSA accounts
3. Tax incentives for preventative care

With Universal Catastrophic Care, health care WILL become a lot more affordable because medical expenses will be capped on an annual basis.

Peter:

My wife works at a top healthcare company and has worse coverage than I do. I am at a fortune 100 company with revenues of 21B and have worst healthcare than most that work at a non-profit. My wife has had to pull the plug on 4 peoples life support this year after they reached the maximum 2M limit on their coverage. These people will die because the companies and doctors no longer want to pay for their services...this is a human rights issue as well.

Patrick stated in previous posts that we all are 1 illness away from bankruptcy. It seems to be a true statement according to my wife as she stated that many people have lost their homes when she pulled their coverage or denied them due to pre-existing conditions.

Your thoughts?

Peter:

This proposition should be a win/win also. We need lower costs and higher profits for the doctors, insurance companies, and pharmarcy industry. In addition, we cannot create a social public-option that does not make money.

I am all for the public-option if it makes money, but if it will run like any other non-profit then I am against it.

I am all for the public-option if it makes money, but if it will run like any other non-profit then I am against it.

I agree!

Patrick stated in previous posts that we all are 1 illness away from bankruptcy. It seems to be a true statement according to my wife as she stated that many people have lost their homes when she pulled their coverage or denied them due to pre-existing conditions.

It is really unacceptable. Health care is more like national defense. We must have a system that protects people from catastrophic financial losses because of an illness.

Patrick is very right.

I had a health care plan for decades that only covered "major medical" expenses and I paid everything
else. It was inexpensive yet covered everything when I did need to go to the hospital.
Many plans today seem to have deductibles way to low and cover way to many minor expenses. As a result they cost to much for someone who has the cash to cover the small stuff.
I have no problem writing a ten thousand dollar check to cover the deductible if I know I won't be on the hook for
a five hundred thousand dollar hospital bill if I get seriously sick.
How can people risk their financial life to buy overpriced houses if they can't afford to pay a high deductible on something as important as their healthcare?

4X says

Peter:
My wife works at a top healthcare company and has worse coverage than I do. I am at a fortune 100 company with revenues of 21B and have worst healthcare than most that work at a non-profit. My wife has had to pull the plug on 4 peoples life support this year after they reached the maximum 2M limit on their coverage. These people will die because the companies and doctors no longer want to pay for their services…this is a human rights issue as well.
Patrick stated in previous posts that we all are 1 illness away from bankruptcy. It seems to be a true statement according to my wife as she stated that many people have lost their homes when she pulled their coverage or denied them due to pre-existing conditions.
Your thoughts?

When I obtain authorizations for patients, it's common for the worker to apologize that they'll be terminating payment of the care. They're human too, and it seems that they don't last long in their jobs. I see so much on my end, I tend to forget the stress that they're under on the insurance end. They don't make the rules - they merely get to enforce 'em.

Many plans today seem to have deductibles way to low and cover way to many minor expenses. As a result they cost to much for someone who has the cash to cover the small stuff.

I agree. I am happy with a $5000 deductible.

In order for people to be responsible for their health, they should feel the sting of medical costs. However, the cost should not be so devastating that they face ruin.

It is important for the government to protect the people's properties. Allowing them to go broke over an illness is like allowing a foreign army to ravage the population.

How can people risk their financial life to buy overpriced houses if they can’t afford to pay a high deductible on something as important as their healthcare?

Perhaps because housing prices NEVER go down? ;-)

should riskey behavior be addressed?

should riskey behavior be addressed?

Sure. It is like voiding a warranty. :-)

Please define risky. Sex with multiple partners? Extreme skiing? Living in New York City vs. living in a rural town? Drinking too much diet pop (aspertame)? Playing pro football? Football in the park?

Just asking, where do we draw the line?

Someone does need to draw the line. For example, drug/alcohol addicts who have repeatedly refused treatment should be left to their own devices. In general, anyone who shows a pattern of willfully declining help should not be helped.

If risky behaviors are enumerated and changes are not allowed once the policies are in force then it should be fair enough.

so ... is it then not fair to say the people who have made bad choices that resulted in not being covered NOW, should be held responsible? If not, then why pretend there will be personal accountablity due to some NEW level of expected behavior?

good question huh?

Good question of course.

:-)