Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!
So instead of having gov't run death panels, we have Blue Cross/Blue Shield death panels. Wow, big improvement there.
We have that now. It don't work so well.
Really? When you go to McDonalds do they tell you what you have to get? If you don't want what they are selling you go somewhere else. The only entity that can force what will be picked is the gov't. The private sector has to provide what people want or they will be out of business.
Not here. The insurance companies all merged or are in cahoots with each other leaving the consumer no choice regarding a lot things.
It all comes down to this choice. Do you want to have all options available to everyone, but they may have to make sacrifices in their lives to afford it? Or do you want everyone's options to be limited to what the gov't allows you to have?
If Blue Cross gets to be too burdensome I can switch to Aetna. If the gov't is too burdensome there is no other place to go.
Not everyone can switch. There are states where 95% of the state is covered by one insurance. Monoploy is not choice.
Never existed? There used to be a lot more health insurance companies than there are now. Heck, there were even fraternal organizations that would take care of each other without the need for formal insurance. Gov't has been the one to drive out competition.
I appreciate your example, but there is no reason that health insurance couldn't work more like that. If the company doens't pay for it then you go out of pocket (or into debt) until you get repaid. I would have no problem working to fasttrack those cases so that payment can be recouped sooner.
Unfortnately, I've got to run so I can't continue a back-and-forth. I just want to end with this:
There is no place in the constitution where it says that the Federal gov't should be a charity. For those who say the General Welfare Clause please read the Federalist Papers and see the Framer's explaination. Also, why bother having the rest of the constitution limit gov't if you've just said it can do anything it wants.
With freedom comes responsibility. You're responsible for yourself. Its great if people want to help each other (and most do), but it isn't the role of gov't to take by force from one person to give it to another.
In our area insurance companies went out of business by underbidding each other and being unable to sustain the rates they promised. They then failed to pay the claims in a timely fashion which caused problems with hospital finances. Now the insurance co make this doesn't happen by making agreements with each other to not cover certain things.
Every time someone makes this argument I want to suggest a law that would allow the person to sign a legal document that would permit refusal of treatment without cash on the barrel before treatment. This way a person would truly be responsible for themselves. We all know that society would scream at that. (as well they should).
Assuming people will be responsible would be great if there weren't those who play the system with no thought to consequence to themselves or others because it is their right. If society were willing to let those people die without penalizing the rest of us this would be a viable argument. We don't tho. The medical disaster first bankrupts the person (if they have anything) then their families and finally it bankrupts the hospitals who have to provide care regardless of the ability to charge the person. Example--A heart attack in a 'healthy guy who doesn't need insurance because nothing is wrong with him' - >100K for trip to ER,acute care during the event, cardiac cath for dx, a stent or 2, a brief stay in the ICU post op, 500-600$ a month in meds afterwards, follow up care- 200$ a visit (cheap). If they are lost to follow up because they can't pay they have another event. Repeat the event, repeat the intervention, etc. If they survive but are not OK, they get to go on SSDI to support them and on Medicare to pay for their healthcare. If they do return to health and the repeal happens they will be uninsurable unless they are employed where they get health insurance with a group. The insurance then will go up for that whole group because the incurred risk is greater. It is a gamble to go without insurance if you are healthy but you are making a bet for a lot of other people who lose when you miss the bet.
Bottom line- there are some things that should not be run for profit. Medicine is one of them. Insurance companies do not have anyone's interest at heart except their own. Finances are tantamount, not the covered person's health. This is something that people rarely seem to take into consideration. Profit is the most important goal.
