A.M.A. Opposes Public Insurance Plan

ib1yysguy said:
You pay by buying a plan like you would through a private insurer. The lower overhead (believe it or not, but some government programs have very efficient and very low overheads, like social security and medicare) and the fact that there is 0 dollars spent on marketing are the most immediate cost benefits that I'm aware of. Also, they don't need to turn 20 percent profit off you either. They dont need to make any profit, which is another big savings.
Click to expand...
ok, no overhead(or very little as you said) and marketing costs will certainly reduce costs of a plan, but i cannot see how there can be no expectation of profit because all of these providers (docs, nurses, techs, equipment) are going to need to be paid and maintained. If the gov is the plan administrator, how are they going to pay these people and maintain equip without making a profit?

I admit, I do like the idea of insuring pre-existing conditions because of my familial circumstances, but i'm still mystified as to any explanation of providing these services at a low cost without everyone being taxed to pay for it.
 
Watermark said:
Can you please tell me how the governments of Germany and France avoid rationing? Just enlighten me? BTW, their healthcare system costs LESS. Costs did not exploded, even though there is no actual rationing. And the waiting times in these systems are SHORTER than estimated American waiting times (although, we are essentially comparing them to an unknown, since American hospitals refuse to publish the information).
Click to expand...
They use huge co-payments that cause people to utilize complimentary private health insurance to cover costs that would otherwise cripple them. More than 92% of the French people carry additional loosely regulated (even less regulation than the US) insurance to cover costs for better health providers.

Their system ensures that they do not have the best technology either, the government does not pay well for the new technology so often France is behind in medical technologies.

Often people who cannot afford the extra insurance and the high co-payments simply do not go in for care.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/

And finally:

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.”
Click to expand...

While they avoided it in the past, it does not mean that they will never have the committees that I spoke of, and that is with the complimentary insurance. Keeping costs low by not investing in new technology, making copays very high (this also keeps down the wait lists as people without complimentary insurance don't go in for care).

And you are flat out wrong about Germany, Germany applies age rationing.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
ok, no overhead(or very little as you said) and marketing costs will certainly reduce costs of a plan, but i cannot see how there can be no expectation of profit because all of these providers (docs, nurses, techs, equipment) are going to need to be paid and maintained. If the gov is the plan administrator, how are they going to pay these people and maintain equip without making a profit?

I admit, I do like the idea of insuring pre-existing conditions because of my familial circumstances, but i'm still mystified as to any explanation of providing these services at a low cost without everyone being taxed to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Well clearly, if what is being proposed is a government subsidized plan, rather than just a government-run plan designed to introduce the desired changes into competition, it would dominate. I don't believe that's what's being proposed.

Although, obviously, to cover the uninsured who can't pay for the plan we'll have to dip into taxpayer dollars. If we can reduce costs enough through reform to make up for this, we won't need to raise taxes. And, if other nations are any indication, such reforms should greatly cheapen the care.
 
Damocles said:
They use huge co-payments that cause people to utilize complimentary private health insurance to cover costs that would otherwise cripple them. More than 92% of the French people carry additional loosely regulated (even less regulation than the US) insurance to cover costs for better health providers.

Their system ensures that they do not have the best technology either, the government does not pay well for the new technology so often France is behind in medical technologies.

Often people who cannot afford the extra insurance and the high co-payments simply do not go in for care.
Click to expand...

Well they pay about 2000 per capita public and 500 per capita private. We pay like 2000 per capita public and 3000 per capita private. So, obviously, our copayments are going to be a lot more.

And, sure, we buy a lot of unnecessary new stuff. But people in France are healthier and live longer. So maybe there's more to it than getting the newest technology for the sake of it.
 
Watermark said:
Well clearly, if what is being proposed is a government subsidized plan, rather than just a government-run plan designed to introduce the desired changes into competition, it would dominate. I don't believe that's what's being proposed.

Although, obviously, to cover the uninsured who can't pay for the plan we'll have to dip into taxpayer dollars. If we can reduce costs enough through reform to make up for this, we won't need to raise taxes. And, if other nations are any indication, such reforms should greatly cheapen the care.
Click to expand...

then I go back to my original post here which said this plan is going to charge some people 3 times...once in a tax to pay for it, twice in paying for the plan itself, then thrice for any 'copay' to receive a treatment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then I go back to my original post here which said this plan is going to charge some people 3 times...once in a tax to pay for it, twice in paying for the plan itself, then thrice for any 'copay' to receive a treatment.
Click to expand...

LOL. But if the total of the three charges added up to less than the total of the two charges of what you pay now, wouldn't it make sense to change? The number of charges isn't the dealbreaker, it's the total. Don't be obtuse. I know you aren't all up on giving healthcare to the uninsured, but if you can lower your costs, you should lower your costs. I know in Singapore they have a hybrid public/private system, and costs there are down to about 1.5 k per capita.
 
Watermark said:
LOL. But if the total of the three charges added up to less than the total of the two charges of what you pay now, wouldn't it make sense to change? The number of charges isn't the dealbreaker, it's the total. Don't be obtuse. I know you aren't all up on giving healthcare to the uninsured, but if you can lower your costs, you should lower your costs. I know in Singapore they have a hybrid public/private system, and costs there are down to about 1.5 k per capita.
Click to expand...

WM, stop labeling me as i'm not about giving healthcare to the uninusered. god damn, I'M one of those uninsured.

i'm not quibbling about the number of charges, but how low do you think the gov plan is going to keep charges, stay competitive with good medical talent, and have the same equipment to use?
 
Watermark said:
Well they pay about 2000 per capita public and 500 per capita private. We pay like 2000 per capita public and 3000 per capita private. So, obviously, our copayments are going to be a lot more.

And, sure, we buy a lot of unnecessary new stuff. But people in France are healthier and live longer. So maybe there's more to it than getting the newest technology for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
Our copayments are currently less, and it comes at a cost to what we would consider proper technology for the best care. Unless you are paying up to 40% copays for all services you aren't paying nearly what the French pay. And again it ignores that there are many who simply cannot afford the supplemental insurance or the copays that go without care. It's like just ignoring children that aren't in school and saying you have full literacy.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
WM, stop labeling me as i'm not about giving healthcare to the uninusered. god damn, I'M one of those uninsured.

i'm not quibbling about the number of charges, but how low do you think the gov plan is going to keep charges, stay competitive with good medical talent, and have the same equipment to use?
Click to expand...

O_o

I'll stereotype you all I want, libertarian.
 
Damocles said:
Our copayments are currently less, and it comes at a cost to what we would consider proper technology for the best care. Unless you are paying up to 40% copays for all services you aren't paying nearly what the French pay.
Click to expand...

40% copays for certain procedures if you have no additional insurance, insurance which is much cheaper than American insurance. The French are healthier. They live longer. They have better care than us.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
This is what I currently see that is going to happen. It will still pass though because of 40 million uninsured Americans will get coverage of some kind and that is all it will take. the damage that comes later will then be too late to undo anything.[/quote

An earlier draft version of the Kennedy legislation was leaked last week, and beyond the omission of the public plan option and the employer mandate, the version released Tuesday appears very similar to the leaked draft. The bill contains an individual mandate, which would require individuals to obtain health insurance or face a penalty determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Part of the estimated 40 million uninsured are young people who think they don't need insurance and of course illegals.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Our copayments are currently less, and it comes at a cost to what we would consider proper technology for the best care. Unless you are paying up to 40% copays for all services you aren't paying nearly what the French pay. And again it ignores that there are many who simply cannot afford the supplemental insurance or the copays that go without care. It's like just ignoring children that aren't in school and saying you have full literacy.
Click to expand...

Umm WRONG!

Finally, to counter the rise in health-care costs, the government has installed two plans, (in 2004 and 2006), which require insured people to declare a referring doctor in order to be fully reimbursed for specalist visits, and which installed a mandatory co-pay of 1 € (about $1.45) for a doctor visit, 0,50 € (about 80 ¢) for each box of medicine prescribed, and a fee of 16-18 € (20-25 $) per day for hospital stays and for expensive procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#France
 
well, since nobody here can allay any fears of limited medical care, lower costs, not raising my taxes, and then just insulting me when I ask serious questions, I guess I'll just be against it.
 
Watermark said:
40% copays for certain procedures if you have no additional insurance, insurance which is much cheaper than American insurance. The French are healthier. They live longer. They have better care than us.
Click to expand...

That's because they have a taste for shit like leeks. It's not so much the amount of money they put into the system, it's the lifestyle of the typical French person which is so much different than our fat asses.
 
Umm $1.45 copay per DR visit is cheap. I pay $25 per visit and pay right at $1,000 per month for private insurance.
And $.80 per prescription fill? My presc copays go up to $60 each.
But not for long, you guys can soon pay my medicare for me :)
Of course I will hit the pill bill gap and have to pay around $3500 for that.
I could already be on the medical dole for disability or Veterans Benefits. I have a bit of a problem with both of those though. I do not need the disability money and I have a serious allergy to the military.
 
Personal tax burdens by country.

prb05107_2-e.jpg


http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb05107-e.htm
 
Watermark said:
40% copays for certain procedures if you have no additional insurance, insurance which is much cheaper than American insurance. The French are healthier. They live longer. They have better care than us.
Click to expand...
And yet there are many uncounted who do not get care because that supplemental insurance is too costly and the copayments too high. If, as you would have it, everybody will be covered it will be more expensive still in the US, and we will still live shorter lives until we start eating a bit better. The measure of longer lives does not equate to better care, we have the tops in technology and care that is second to none, we die earlier because we are fat hogs, not because our health care needs improvement.

Anyway, it isn't that I am against (or for) some sort of system based on the French one, it is that we need to be realistic as to the cost. We'll not get it as cheap as the French because we will continue to want the best care with the best technology. Saying it will be as cheap as the French system is unrealistic and would come at a cost that most Americans would be unwilling to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top