It works, but not here. we are unhealthy and we think we need our vaccinations administered by the chief of medicine at Johns Hopkins. We sue the pants off of anyone who does anything wrong whether they meant to or not. that's why medicine and doctors are expensive, that's why you need insurance just to get a yearly checkup.
The US has a hard time running nationalized programs. Medicare is going to be bankrupt soon, and Soc Sec is going to last maybe another generation without some serious reform.
There should be a net for those who cannot pay their way (and even that will run over-cost and be rife with fraud, i.e. Medi-Cal and Medicare), but a medicare-for-all type proposal would be a disaster. I'm sure it CAN work, but not without reworking the entire system.
I believe that putting the entire United States under the same umbrella as everyone sues people and no one takes responsibility for their actions and does anything wrong would be a stretch. There are all kinds of national health plans. Each country is different and requires modifications. If China, the most populated country in the world can work on some type of reform and have a goal to implement by 2011 the United States and figure it out too. We could follow in similar footsteps as Taiwan, they looked at all the different plans around the countries and made up their own to best suit them. Also, Switzerland which refuses to conform to the health care systems in surrounding countries used to have almost the same market place health care system that we have today. Granted they have a smaller population they were able to make successful changes. Japan makes it mandatory for people to sign up for health care. I have a feeling that if U.S changes it's health care it would need to make signing up mandatory. At any rate, we have millions of people suffering from injury and illness and we need to work on lowering the cost of health care. There is no regulation on the increases of premiums or how much a medical professional can charge for procedures. We are a country that is selfish and we need to look out for one another or there will not be anyone left.
In my opinion if we the "United States of America" want to think of ourselves as a 1st world country we need to get with the program. We need to have Health Care and Education for all. As a country we are going to be left in the dust many, many other parts of the world would not or did not give this a second thought. Why not protect the people that make this country what it is make sure that they are cared for. It should be mandatory to find a solution to this problem stop worrying about how we've failed at other government programs and concentrate on making this work!
This past year, my family and I experimented with a High Deductible Health Plan. The way this plan is set up, consumers of health care, faced with the sticker shock of how much every medical service costs, become active and smarter consumers.
1) Competitively priced for organizational sponsorship: Because this plan costs $9040 annually for a family of four, way below corporate subsidies for Kaiser HMO or traditional copayment plans, the employer chose to offer it free of monthly employee premium contributions.
2) Save and keep your money: So what you would have paid for your premium you can now invest into a Health Savings Account, cap of about $6000 for the family; unused funds are rolled over - not forfeited like the flexible spending accounts.
3) Pay as you go high but fair deductible: You pay pre-negotiated rates for doctor's visits and services and the full price of your prescriptions, until you meet your family deductible of $2400. FYI, Costco Pharmacy has the most competitive prices and you don't even need Costco membership to its pharmacy.
4) 10% for services is awesome, but knowing that $4200 is your maximum medical costs for the year is awesome: From that point, everything is covered at 90%, so you $10 Rx now costs you $1. Granted, because my family is relatively healthy, we didn't reach this deductible until mid-November. Also, because they are encouraging preventative programs, your annual physical is covered 100% regardless of whether the deductible has been met. You have the flexibility of a PPO network and a maximum out of pocket of $4200.
5) Accountability - what's good for you is good for the community, society, and nation: You will no longer go to the emergency room for a cold, but will definitely try to get in to see your doctor. You will no longer buy medicine and not use it or ask for tests just for the heck of it. The plan makes you accountable because you see how much it costs. Yet, this plan is not offered everywhere; I know Intel and Cisco offer it. If there is a national health care plan of some sort, my opinion is that it be in some variation of this High Deductible Health Plan that forces savings, forces the sticker shock, and forces accountability of frivolous escalations (such as overuse of emergency rooms).
Health insurance is expensive because so many uninsured people using emergency rooms, draining the charity funds and applying for state/federal aid. If there is a way to break this cycle, there may be hope for lower medical costs all around.
One of the ways that the U.S. can improve access to healthcare for all its' citizens is to better control the costs associated with it.
The largest determinant to the cost that we all eventually pay for healthcare now is based on standardized payouts by Medicare. Medicare maintains a list price for all medical equipment and procedures.
Prior to the establishment of Medicare in the 1960's, healthcare costs were relatively stable. As it is now, it is not uncommon for healthcare costs to rise 10% per annum. The fault of these increases can largely be directed to the overbearance of the federal government.
Unfortunatley the federal government has a poor record managing the healthcare services it currently provides. Anyone who is currently or has in the past recieved government healthcare (i,e. VA, Medicare, military) can write volumes on the poor level of care and services provided by the government run programs.
It is poor logic to take away a better managed health system from the majority in order to enbsure that everyone has an equal opportunity to receive poor health care.
The U.S. government is attempting to destroy the current system, that is not be perfect, in order to provide a poor quality product with no competition . The consequence is that all of us will be forced like cattle down a slaughter line that we have no choice in.
Let's assume that the national healthcare program will be rolled out in it's entirity. Does anyone see the valid arguments that must be made in order to experience a successful implementation?
Also, do you think that the systems should be subdivided into the control of the states government systems rather than the federal forum? Would it be a good or bad move to do so?
It works, but not here. we are unhealthy and we think we need our vaccinations administered by the chief of medicine at Johns Hopkins. We sue the pants off of anyone who does anything wrong whether they meant to or not. that's why medicine and doctors are expensive, that's why you need insurance just to get a yearly checkup.
ReplyDeleteThe US has a hard time running nationalized programs. Medicare is going to be bankrupt soon, and Soc Sec is going to last maybe another generation without some serious reform.
There should be a net for those who cannot pay their way (and even that will run over-cost and be rife with fraud, i.e. Medi-Cal and Medicare), but a medicare-for-all type proposal would be a disaster. I'm sure it CAN work, but not without reworking the entire system.
I believe that putting the entire United States under the same umbrella as everyone sues people and no one takes responsibility for their actions and does anything wrong would be a stretch. There are all kinds of national health plans. Each country is different and requires modifications. If China, the most populated country in the world can work on some type of reform and have a goal to implement by 2011 the United States and figure it out too. We could follow in similar footsteps as Taiwan, they looked at all the different plans around the countries and made up their own to best suit them. Also, Switzerland which refuses to conform to the health care systems in surrounding countries used to have almost the same market place health care system that we have today. Granted they have a smaller population they were able to make successful changes.
ReplyDeleteJapan makes it mandatory for people to sign up for health care. I have a feeling that if U.S changes it's health care it would need to make signing up mandatory. At any rate, we have millions of people suffering from injury and illness and we need to work on lowering the cost of health care. There is no regulation on the increases of premiums or how much a medical professional can charge for procedures. We are a country that is selfish and we need to look out for one another or there will not be anyone left.
In my opinion if we the "United States of America" want to think of ourselves as a 1st world country we need to get with the program. We need to have Health Care and Education for all. As a country we are going to be left in the dust many, many other parts of the world would not or did not give this a second thought. Why not protect the people that make this country what it is make sure that they are cared for. It should be mandatory to find a solution to this problem stop worrying about how we've failed at other government programs and concentrate on making this work!
ReplyDeleteThis past year, my family and I experimented with a High Deductible Health Plan. The way this plan is set up, consumers of health care, faced with the sticker shock of how much every medical service costs, become active and smarter consumers.
ReplyDelete1) Competitively priced for organizational sponsorship:
Because this plan costs $9040 annually for a family of four, way below corporate subsidies for Kaiser HMO or traditional copayment plans, the employer chose to offer it free of monthly employee premium contributions.
2) Save and keep your money:
So what you would have paid for your premium you can now invest into a Health Savings Account, cap of about $6000 for the family; unused funds are rolled over - not forfeited like the flexible spending accounts.
3) Pay as you go high but fair deductible:
You pay pre-negotiated rates for doctor's visits and services and the full price of your prescriptions, until you meet your family deductible of $2400. FYI, Costco Pharmacy has the most competitive prices and you don't even need Costco membership to its pharmacy.
4) 10% for services is awesome, but knowing that $4200 is your maximum medical costs for the year is awesome:
From that point, everything is covered at 90%, so you $10 Rx now costs you $1. Granted, because my family is relatively healthy, we didn't reach this deductible until mid-November. Also, because they are encouraging preventative programs, your annual physical is covered 100% regardless of whether the deductible has been met. You have the flexibility of a PPO network and a maximum out of pocket of $4200.
5) Accountability - what's good for you is good for the community, society, and nation:
You will no longer go to the emergency room for a cold, but will definitely try to get in to see your doctor. You will no longer buy medicine and not use it or ask for tests just for the heck of it. The plan makes you accountable because you see how much it costs. Yet, this plan is not offered everywhere; I know Intel and Cisco offer it. If there is a national health care plan of some sort, my opinion is that it be in some variation of this High Deductible Health Plan that forces savings, forces the sticker shock, and forces accountability of frivolous escalations (such as overuse of emergency rooms).
Health insurance is expensive because so many uninsured people using emergency rooms, draining the charity funds and applying for state/federal aid. If there is a way to break this cycle, there may be hope for lower medical costs all around.
One of the ways that the U.S. can improve access to healthcare for all its' citizens is to better control the costs associated with it.
ReplyDeleteThe largest determinant to the cost that we all eventually pay for healthcare now is based on standardized payouts by Medicare. Medicare maintains a list price for all medical equipment and procedures.
Prior to the establishment of Medicare in the 1960's, healthcare costs were relatively stable. As it is now, it is not uncommon for healthcare costs to rise 10% per annum. The fault of these increases can largely be directed to the overbearance of the federal government.
Unfortunatley the federal government has a poor record managing the healthcare services it currently provides. Anyone who is currently or has in the past recieved government healthcare (i,e. VA, Medicare, military) can write volumes on the poor level of care and services provided by the government run programs.
It is poor logic to take away a better managed health system from the majority in order to enbsure that everyone has an equal opportunity to receive poor health care.
The U.S. government is attempting to destroy the current system, that is not be perfect, in order to provide a poor quality product with no competition . The consequence is that all of us will be forced like cattle down a slaughter line that we have no choice in.
No thank you.
Let's assume that the national healthcare program will be rolled out in it's entirity. Does anyone see the valid arguments that must be made in order to experience a successful implementation?
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you think that the systems should be subdivided into the control of the states government systems rather than the federal forum? Would it be a good or bad move to do so?