Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[wabrams]

Yup.

Are the medications you need cheap or expensive?

 

[pathia]

Are the medications you need cheap or expensive?

Expensive here, but not so expensive everywhere else in the world. There’s a 5-10x premium on the same medication from the same company here, as opposed to say Netherlands (which doesn’t have price controls on the drugs).

 

[seekerz]

Actually, if left to free and open interstate competition, the insurance companies serve us just fine.

But what has happened is that we, the citizens, are not permitted to purchase things like HSA [Health Savings Accounts] and catastrophic insurance. The government(s) [Federal and state] outright prohibit them from being sold, except in very limited situations.

The Congress makes these laws and also makes tax policy.

So our government is causing the unnecessarily high costs. And THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND BLAMES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for problems that the government created.

We need to vote out the Democrats in November. It was people like Ted Kennedy who wrote in the prohibitions for free and open sale of HSA’s. Well, he has passed on and “his seat” is now in Republican hands [Hopefully, the Republican will do a better job.]

Free and open interstate competition without mandates. That is #1 and that is what the Democrats do not want.

Automatic investigation and audit and prosecution of Medicaid fraud. The Democrats do not want that because it is being done on an organized basis. That is #2. The cost is in the tens of billions. There are legitimate cases of need and a lot of them. But the fraudsters are organized with doctors and lawyers sharing office space. They are known but the politicians won’t prosecute or investigate because of campaign contributions.

Tort reform, particularly caps on lawsuits. That is #3 and that is what the Democrats do not want. Guys like Edwards make and made tens of millions and cause good drugs to be pulled off the market.

Tax policy that allows full tax deductions for all medical expenses. That is #4. That is what the Democrats do not want. They put in limits. And when I say “all”, I mean all. That includes my being able to pay my mother’s expenses and being able to deduct them.

Tax policy that allows refundable tax credits for all medical expenses for people with low incomes and high medical expenses. The paperwork would be done by the hospital, all would be fully vetted. There are some, not a lot of, people who have posted here, like Pathia, who were born with medical conditions that require extensive treatment. That is #5.

There are many other reforms that could be undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer and with reduced costs to everyone with higher quality service and better innovation. Such as letting hospitals advertise to their local residents that the people can buy insurance from the hospital. AND that could include regular visits, and all sorts of levels of coverage to include pap smears, mammograms, prostate exams, blood and fluid lab work [which is a really cheap way to get a physical] and that can be done as part of a blood donor program.

I have often asked blood banks why they don’t provide an incentive to donate in the form of a “drive-by” physical. They have all the lab facilities and can do every kind of blood test. [For a test requiring fasting, you would need a separate visit, or fast first and then they would provide a snack in their snack bar before you donate blood.]

The blood banks already do a blood pressure test. They have your height and weight and medical history and what meds you are taking. That tells a lot. And they could very easily do a body mass evaluation. Very simple to do.

Some good ideas in your post. Let’s see:

1. Interstate competition. Might be a good idea. Let’s see how well it works for other entities in health care: do pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers already compete across state lines? Are their products still a major contributing factor to the high cost of health care? Is interstate competition among insurance companies by itself any more likely to lower premium costs? I’m not convinced…
2. Medicare fraud/abuse: thought that was an area both sides agreed on, but I could be mistaken. Not all fraud/abuse is easy to eradicate or even detect, far less prosecute. Some abuse is so highly specialized and subtle that it would necessitate some professionals ‘eating their own’. Not sure how much control any politician or insurance company could have over that… Best ‘fix’ I can see for that is patient education and patient advocacy.
3. Tort reform is part real issue and part much ado about very little. Many people blame defensive medicine (and the attendant unnecessary costs) on the fear of lawsuits, but I have see little by way of statistics to show any real lowering of costs in states where tort reform has been enacted.
4. Tax credits sound good and they might indeed be helpful to people who don’t qualify for Medicaid or other financial assistance. Not sure to what extent they would help someone whose share of the hospital bill works out to be more than her yearly income, though. The cost of health care itself has to be addressed.
5. Buying insurance from my local hospital, on the face of it not a bad idea. On further thought that might be kind of like having the fox guarding the henhouse! Which hospital is going to deny a claim from it’s self? And make no mistake - there are claims (unnecessary, outrageous or erroneous) that deserve to be denied. Which hospital is going to bargain with itself for the lowest possible reimbursement rates? Can’t see how this would bring down costs at all, unless you have not just a really honest but also a genuinely caring (dare I say Catholic?) health corporation/insurer in your area.
6. The blood donation/check up idea is also a good one on the face of it but consider that the ones who often need health care the most are also likely to be the ones least suitable as donors. With an incentive for giving blood, especially this form of incentive, there would likely be more unsuitable donors volunteering and this would make transfusions less safe (testing is done, but honesty about one’s health status is still very important).

Also, who would bear the cost of the ‘donation check-up’? The Red Cross/hospital or the patient needing the blood (in the form of a higher hospital bill)?

I see you also mention HSA’s. They are available but have their limitations. Again, the money in an HSA could go much further if Tylenol didn’t cost 10x as much in the Emergency Room as in the pharmacy aisle.

There’s no getting away from the need for a comprehensive overhaul. The form of comprehensive overhaul is debatable, but the need for it to be more than just several promising ideas here and there, is pretty clear to anyone familiar with the system.

 

[pathia]

I have often asked blood banks why they don’t provide an incentive to donate in the form of a “drive-by” physical. They have all the lab facilities and can do every kind of blood test. [For a test requiring fasting, you would need a separate visit, or fast first and then they would provide a snack in their snack bar before you donate blood.]

The blood banks already do a blood pressure test. They have your height and weight and medical history and what meds you are taking. That tells a lot. And they could very easily do a body mass evaluation. Very simple to do.

I’m blacklisted, not allowed to donate. Last time I donated, I went out like a light, so bad I woke up with an IV in me at the ER. I think even just passing out nets you a lifetime ban.

 

[NotWorthy]

Some good ideas in your post. Let’s see:

1. Interstate competition. Might be a good idea. Let’s see how well it works for other entities in health care: do pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers already compete across state lines? Are their products still a major contributing factor to the high cost of health care? Is interstate competition among insurance companies by itself any more likely to lower premium costs? I’m not convinced…

Hmmmm… three things cause higher drug prices in the good ol’ USA.

1. The cost of research. Have you ever looked at the overwhelming percentage of drugs that are invented in the USA? Compare that with Canada and the enlightened Europe and see what kind of future there is in drug research if we follow down this black hole.
2. Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.
3. Many other countries have:
   a) no copyright infringements.
   b) government subsidized medicine. In other words, you’re paying for your medicine whether you know it or not.