|
Phydeaux -> RE: OBAMA LIED!!! (11/1/2013 2:39:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
If a parent company owned both providers and insurers, is there any doubt they have accountants working on maximizing that?
Yep, and that kind of stuff definitely happens. For example, one of the biggest prescription benefit management companies in the US, Caremark, is owned by CVS. I've heard some insurers own medical supply companies, too, for the same reason.
How do we fix that?
Government regulation? I mean, really, more robust anti-trust regulation is the only way I can see to do that.
Guess what, I've been saying that we need to separate the care providers from the insurers for well over a year now. It tends to get dismissed by most on here, though.
Thanks for the honest answer. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks along those lines.
I think that would be one step in cutting healthcare costs, yeah. Certainly not the only thing that needs to be done, but it would help. I bet the reason that you get dismissed is because you're conservative enough that a lot of liberals going to dismiss everything you say, and yet conservatives generally oppose government regulation of the medical industry, so they don't really want to hear that either. But this seems like a pretty common-sense measure that could get bipartisan support.... if politicians weren't getting so much campaign donations from insurers and such.
And you would be absolutely right, grace.
When consumers want a good deal in other industries - they go to the source. You know, outlet malls, big box distributors.
They negotiate directly, and they know what they can afford.
This same approach was tried in the healthcare industry - and it worked.
As I recall it, the original proposals were put forward by Dan Coates, of Indiana.
The basic premise was that anyone (not just employers) could take pretax dollars and set them aside for health.
They could then negotiate directly with their doctors and use those dollars in whatever method they chose.
Now, this doesn't address the need for disaster medical insurance.
And it doesn't address the need to take care of the poor.
And before people put words in my mouth, I am all in favor of programs to take care of the poor.
But having insurance companies as the middleman on every insurance transaction is just .. nuts.
Name anything that gets cheaper by having a middleman? And having the government *be* that middleman is just crazy over the top nuts.
Right now, unions negotiate contracts - and get cadillac care. Once gotten, they have no incentive to
comparison shop. Dr.'s - that make a profit per procedure, have a incentive to prescribe. Also for defensive medicine reasons.
However, if consumers had a reason to comparison shop, competition lowers the prices. Compare the costs of breast enlargements or lasix surgery over the last 10 years, with the general cost of health insurance. Breasts enlargements are considered elective and are not normally covered under insurance.
Therefore they are paid for by the individuals, and people comparison shop. These prices have actually fallen in real dollar terms, over the last 10 years.
However, you have to understand that this approach is very dangerous to the goals of the democrats. It is a healthcare approach that isn't run by the state, and doesn't allow the democrats to capture more voters. It is very specifically for these reasons that health savings accounts were gutted by obamacare.
They do not want you making your own health care decisions, and paying for your own healthcare.
There are, in the end, two fundamental choices.
You have the freemarket system, where
a). People shop for routine medical care.
b). People buy insurance for medical expenses above whatever their pain threshold is.
c). Ideally, the governent makes competition available across state lines.
It requires the disclosure of medical malpractice (so people can make an informed decision).
It creates voluntary standards for insurance to help people comparison shop. Much like home mortgages conform to FHA standards etc.
It creates legal liability standards, just like PIP laws for the autoindustry.
You then have the democrats preferred solution where:
a). Everyone pays into a single payer solution. And the government is responsible for paying health care providers.
Why am I for the former, and against the latter?
Because the bigger government is, the less answerable it is to the public.
Because I don't want my medical care being determined by an organization that can't run the post office.
Because I don't want more opportunities for cronyism, government sinecures, waste, fraud and abuse.
Because the free market system has the best medical outcomes in the world.
Because about 80% of all medical inventions brought to market were developed in the US, over the last 20 years.
|
|
|
|
