Be careful what you wish for

[2pac Shakur]

Be careful what you wish for.

I'll make a wish that can't backfire. I wish for a turkey sandwich, on
rye bread, with lettuce and mustard, and, <and> I don't want any zombie
turkeys, I don't want to turn into a turkey myself, and I don't want any
other weird surprises. You got it?
[the monkey's paw closes its finger in understanding]
[a turkey sandwich materializes]
[Homer takes it] Hey! [digs in]
Not bad. Nice, hot mustard. Good bread. The turkey's a little dry.
[in realization] The turkey's a little dry!
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth! [huh?]
What demon from the depths of hell created thee!

[Len Myers]

Originally Posted by notreallyme

... I'll admit one of the silliest things I find about health insurance is that I don't get indemnified when I find out about the loss. You would never see a Accident Victim (liability) being forced to resue (issue a new claim) each time the same event incurs more expenses.

thus the mandate. Health insurers are run by people who read The Rainmaker and thought it was a good idea thwarted by a damned lawyer. P&C companies understand that if you don't pay claims, you have no product to sell.

[oirg]

Originally Posted by erosewater

Mandates add a few percentage points to costs. Most of them are not for really expensive items. Freely designed plans are still going to cover cancer, preemie babies, i.e. the expensive stuff. And the insurance market is fairly competitive already.

Focusing on the insurance side will never fix our problem. The cost of care and the way we deliver care is the real issue.

[whisper]

Originally Posted by Interesting Post

If the Supremes overturn health reform and/or the individual mandate, employers, taxpayers, and individuals are going to see higher health insurance premiums.

If the Supremes don't overturn health reform and/or individual mandate, employers, taxpayers, and individual are going to see higher health insurance premiums as well.

The problem is the cost of health care services, not health care insurance.

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by whisper

The problem is the cost of health care services, not health care insurance.

Finally someone with logic. You can design whatever insurance product or method of financing insurance you want, and costs will still skyrocket, maybe slightly slower in some cases. Only way to reduce/control medical costs, ban insurance and make people pay out of pocket for everything maybe with some real insurance dread disease coverage available but only when it becomes a truly insurable event.

[whisper]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

But you want to MANDATE a wage increase?

Not really. It's just recognizing that the distinction between your salary and the money the company pays for you on your benefits is artificial.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

Originally Posted by erosewater

Mandates add a few percentage points to costs. Most of them are not for really expensive items. Freely designed plans are still going to cover cancer, preemie babies, i.e. the expensive stuff. And the insurance market is fairly competitive already.

Focusing on the insurance side will never fix our problem. The cost of care and the way we deliver care is the real issue.

+n where n=n+1

The real problem is the cost side. The rest is just window dressing and politics.

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

Right now, there is no incentive to change matters. You change way insurance is treated and delivered, it will drive change into the way medical services are delivered, and it will do so by necessity. Consumers will drive that, too. Many will opt for more personalized medical care in home (home-births, for example) that are a fraction of the cost, and if doctors don't have to be scared out of the gourd that they'll be sued out of practice if they agree to a home delivery, costs will be greatly reduced. More insurance companies willing to offer coverage of having midwives deliver as opposed to NOT covering it and encouraging delivery in a hospital suite at triple the cost makes no sense at all.

Truly, the case, but as long as we have company provided medical plans, I don't think innovation will happen as that is the bulk of the market and separates the consumer from innovative design and cost. That is my main point.

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by Guerilla poster

Finally someone with logic. You can design whatever insurance product or method of financing insurance you want, and costs will still skyrocket, maybe slightly slower in some cases. Only way to reduce/control medical costs, ban insurance and make people pay out of pocket for everything maybe with some real insurance dread disease coverage available but only when it becomes a truly insurable event.

Lump-sum payments upon diagnosis can have extremely predictable premiums. And those kinds of policies would have the individual consumer of care interested in the price of care. And they can very easily be limited to actual insurable events.

I suspect we'd see a much lower rate of technology development and pharmaceutical developments with the removal of the third-party payor mechanism though.

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by FormLetter

I suspect we'd see a much lower rate of technology development and pharmaceutical developments with the removal of the third-party payor mechanism though.

Well, yeah, lower costs will mean less innovation. Once the profits shrink, less of the economy will go to this area. But at some point, this has to happen.