Public Health Care Option Revived in Senate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Karen Reim on October 30, 2009 at 10:42am

I fear without a public option, private insurance will remain too expensive for those with preexisting conditions. I worry that, with too little regulation, private insurance companies will still be able to set premiums at there own discretion once they are no longer able to deny those with prior conditions. Are my fears justified?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Silota on October 30, 2009 at 1:02pm

1)Tort Reform would go a long way to lower health costs, but NO ONE is talking about that. Could it be because the "Legal" Lobby is so powerful and 40% of congress are lawyer?
2)Arbitration a la Australian method, rather than suing...read #1 ...Kaiser in California already does this. To be a Kaiser patient, one must sign an arbitration agreement.
3)No more fee for service
4)Insurance choice a la Japan, German model; one can change insurance companies without a problem..insure across states...choose like any other product..let the market decide who has the best product for the money
5)lower administrative costs from 18% to 5% a la Japanese and German models
6) insure everyone...they can choose where (read #5)
If these steps were all incorporated into the "health reform", there would be great savings, everyone would be insured, and it wouldn't cost a fortune!! There are so many countries with different health care formulas - why not take what works
AND DON'T RUSH! Everyone agrees that health reform is needed. Let's do it RIGHT and NOT fast!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Giovanna on October 30, 2009 at 4:16pm

Silota, I agree with all your points, particularly "why not take what works" idea. I agree with do it RIGHT and not necessarily fast; but time alone is not sufficient, it has to be used well. At the moment, it appears as if time is giving the forces of the status quo a way to protect their own interest and prolong the agony for everyone else.

Silota said:

1)Tort Reform would go a long way to lower health costs, but NO ONE is talking about that. Could it be because the "Legal" Lobby is so powerful and 40% of congress are lawyer?
2)Arbitration a la Australian method, rather than suing...read #1 ...Kaiser in California already does this. To be a Kaiser patient, one must sign an arbitration agreement. 3)No more fee for service 4)Insurance choice a la Japan, German model; one can change insurance companies without a problem..insure across states...choose like any other product..let the market decide who has the best product for the money
5)lower administrative costs from 18% to 5% a la Japanese and German models
6) insure everyone...they can choose where (read #5)
If these steps were all incorporated into the "health reform", there would be great savings, everyone would be insured, and it wouldn't cost a fortune!! There are so many countries with different health care formulas - why not take what works
AND DON'T RUSH! Everyone agrees that health reform is needed. Let's do it RIGHT and NOT fast!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wonkguy on November 3, 2009 at 12:32pm

I think the public option is incredibly vital to health care reform. I'd like to see a strong public option that covers pre-existing conditions, birth control, dental care and can negotiate the best prices. This does not in any mean it has to be a government run program, although I'm not opposed to that.

"Tort reform" is just a smoke screen and the real intent is to take people's rights away to redress greviences in a court of law. The savings are not there. If you want to cut down on medical malpractice costs, then get rid of the bad doctors who commit medical malpractice. Seems simple enough to me. (http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/03/130et-when-docs-screw-up/)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on November 4, 2009 at 10:08am

"Tort reform" is just a smoke screen and the real intent is to take people's rights away to redress greviences in a court of law.

I'm amazed that so few people get this.

The reason there are infintely more lawsuits in this country is that there's no single-payer healthcare. In every other industrialized country, when healthcare providers (inevitably) make mistakes, it falls on the *government* to provide basic services for the victim of those mistakes for life.

There is no such safety-net in the US. Unless those who blithely support "tort reform" are arguing that victims of malpractice should just die, I'm not sure what their point is. Given the fact that every single instance in which the effects of tort reform have been studied, there have been *no* savings whatsoever, I'm a little perplexed at the fetishization of tort reform.

Meanwhile, if conservative fundamentalists want to save money and eliminate frivolous lawsuits, go ahead and support a single-payer healthcare model like they do everywhere else.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This