MANDATORY health insurance

[Tiger Edge]

Here's a sad example to get you all started!

Recent college graduate (he's going to be a lawyer) goes jet skiing a few days after graduation as a "celebration." His arm was strangled in what was described as a "freak accident" with a rope or something. He lost his arm about halfway between the elbow and the shoulder.
Prosthetic cost? $90,000
Insurance? None. He is too old to be insured under his parents and wasn't working at the time, I guess.
Solution? Parents maxed out all credit cards just to pay for half of that. I don't even want to know what they did to their mortgage to pay for it.

We secretly want him to become a lawyer and an advocate for amputees.

 

[INDY500]

Sad story to be sure, but what if a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan had been available to him? You pay out-of-pocket for routine trips to the doctor and someone that young would have very low monthly premiums. Insurance only kicks in for long hospital stays, major surgeries or "freak accidents."

I'm telling you, if I was just outta college I'd be all over that type of insurance, not some government run plan laden down with all kinds of mandated coverage I most likely will never need.

 

[anitram]

Sad story to be sure, but what if a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan had been available to him? You pay out-of-pocket for routine trips to the doctor and someone that young would have very low monthly premiums. Insurance only kicks in for long hospital stays, major surgeries or "freak accidents."

I'm telling you, if I was just outta college I'd be all over that type of insurance, not some government run plan laden down with all kinds of mandated coverage I most likely will never need.

You're much more likely to need everything but long hospital stays, major surgeries or "freak accidents," even as a recent college graduate...probably especially as a recent college graduate.

 

[VintagePunk]

Sad story to be sure, but what if a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan had been available to him? You pay out-of-pocket for routine trips to the doctor and someone that young would have very low monthly premiums. Insurance only kicks in for long hospital stays, major surgeries or "freak accidents."

I'm telling you, if I was just outta college I'd be all over that type of insurance, not some government run plan laden down with all kinds of mandated coverage I most likely will never need.

I read comments like this and realize how fortunate we are here in Canada not to have to choose between treating catastrophic injuries or mundane illnesses. It's very unfortunate that this is often what it comes down to in the US, though.

 

[BVS]

Sad story to be sure, but what if a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan had been available to him? You pay out-of-pocket for routine trips to the doctor and someone that young would have very low monthly premiums. Insurance only kicks in for long hospital stays, major surgeries or "freak accidents."

Yes, and then they would do their best to get out of paying... I've seen it happen, insurance company did a private investigation(after the cops had declared it an accident) tried to claim the kid was intoxicated, negligence, etc... dragged their feet so long that full recovery was never abtained by the time they said they would pay for the treatment. If they had treated right away the kid would more than likely be fine, it's been 6 years since the accident and he still isn't 100%, he finally won his claim against the insurance company about 6 months ago.

 

[INDY500]

Never in 100 years would I think I'd find an ally at Whole Foods. Wouldn't be caught dead in one, until now.

I've highlighted the areas that I've been stressing the past week.

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
By JOHN MACKEY

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. [/b]What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.[/b]

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.


Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

—Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

None of this, with the possible exception of Medicare reform, is in any of the Democrat's healthcare bills. This is the alternative that I hope to see Republicans, independents and blue-dog Democrats get behind.

 

[Diemen]

Wouldn't be caught dead in one

Why's that?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Why's that?

the pesticides and growth hormones in non-organic food makes them taste better

 

[anitram]

It's not where REAL Americans shop. Only Liberal elite pansies in Manhattan and San Fran....

 

[VintagePunk]

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

That is such a gross mischaracterization of the way things are here. The information in those couple of paragraphs range from flat out lies to facts taken completely out of context. It irks me to no end when right wingers lie about our health care to bolster the case against government administered health care plans.

 

[INDY500]

It's not where REAL Americans shop. Only Liberal elite pansies in Manhattan and San Fran....

That's right, it's a stereotype. Kinda like saying opponents of Obamacare are grossly uninformed, stooges for Big Insurance or angry about a black man being in the White House. If not all three.

 

[anitram]

830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily.

The same report that stated that somebody like Stephen Hawking would have died had he been a citizen and resident of the UK.

 

[VintagePunk]

The same report that stated that somebody like Stephen Hawking would have died had he been a citizen and resident of the UK.

Exactly. 830,000 waiting till when? Waiting till tomorrow? Waiting till next week? Waiting till 6 months from now?

Because we know that in the US, people are told that they need surgery, and then they immediately proceed to the closest hospital where they are operated on within 20 minutes. Geez.

That's not even to mention the absurdity of the number in the first place.

 

[anitram]

Exactly. 830,000 waiting till when? Waiting till tomorrow? Waiting till next week? Waiting till 6 months from now?

And waiting for what exactly?

 

[VintagePunk]

And waiting for what exactly?

Well, you know the scores of people that are dying daily while waiting for lifesaving surgeries, right? It's gotten so bad that the government has resorted to getting in front end loaders to dig mass graves for all the people they're killing.

All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Makes us sound like we're friggin' paupers from some Charles Dickens novel, waiting hours in line for a vitamin C tablet to ward off the scurvy...

 

[Irvine511]

Well, you know the scores of people that are dying daily while waiting for lifesaving surgeries, right? It's gotten so bad that the government has resorted to getting in front end loaders to dig mass graves for all the people they're killing.

hence, Death Panels.

you see?

 

[melon]

Exactly. 830,000 waiting till when? Waiting till tomorrow? Waiting till next week? Waiting till 6 months from now?

I guess it's better for 830,000 uninsured people to die in the U.S. from a total lack of access to treatments just so the very rich can always be first in line.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Exactly. 830,000 waiting till when? Waiting till tomorrow? Waiting till next week? Waiting till 6 months from now?

Because we know that in the US, people are told that they need surgery, and then they immediately proceed to the closest hospital where they are operated on within 20 minutes. Geez.

That's not even to mention the absurdity of the number in the first place.

exactly. when i had surgery last year, i had to wait too! of course, the surgeon isn't always immediately available to do surgery minutes after receiving your diagnosis. that and if you need to take any time off work, you obviously need to give your boss some kind of notice and also so you can get any disability/leave situated.

i know this is something all sides do so i'm not pointing fingers at republicans or anything, but i hate the scare tactic where facts and numbers get distorted like this.

 

[melon]

we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment

Good luck trying to tell your insurance company what you want to have, particularly when even the highest deductible option, presuming that you're perfectly healthy, is still probably too expensive to have.

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)

The sheer purpose of high-deductible insurance is to discourage ever using it, while allowing insurance companies to continue to collect premiums. So let's figure this out. Is the purpose of health care reform to get people to buy insurance policies they can't effectively use or to make health care affordable for people who are sick? If it's the latter, then high-deductible insurance plans and HSAs are not the solution--just a contributor to the existing problem.

Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

Again, to reap tax benefits, you have to have the money to spend in the first place. Health insurance, even at the crappiest level, is too expensive for most people to purchase on their own.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

Perfect. So our non-competitive insurance companies that already look for excuses not to cover insured ailments can now continue to charge just as much and cover even less. And if you don't like it? Tough!

Enact tort reform

An idea that looks good on paper, but how much has this idea been thought out? If, through medical malpractice, a family member is now stuck with a complication that will require treatment that will cost millions of dollars to effectively treat over a lifetime, are we to tell them that they are only entitled to partial payment, and, thus, will have to treat the doctor's mistake themselves out-of-pocket? It's always nice to advocate that "other people" be forced to deal with less, but I wouldn't doubt that everyone wants their own family members fully covered in such circumstances. Americans, after all, ultimately believe in fairness.

how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges.

Poor people who do not have effective access to food and shelter are provided it by the government, both through food stamps and government-subsidized housing. In this case, however, not only is health insurance prohibitive in cost to the poor, it is also out-of-access to much of the middle class, unless it is employer-provided. It is quite clear that the private system is broken, and the private sector has failed to adhere to capitalistic practices of "supply and demand." Instead, we have a system that deals with inelastic demand and supply costs that are allowed to rise exponentially without limit.

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Or, if you're in the U.S., you're told by your insurance company that your cancer treatments aren't covered because they're "experimental," and your hospital won't pay for it, because the treatments costs upwards of $500,000, and expect you to pay for it out-of-pocket. Or, if you're lucky and they do it anyway, your end-of-treatment reward is a trip to personal bankruptcy court. But hey...as long as the wealthy can get liposuction and a face lift ASAP--that is, the kinds of optional procedures that are likely to require waiting lists in Canada and the U.K. to make room for necessary operations--who the fuck cares about the lower classes?

every American adult is responsible for his or her own health

...

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Gee...doesn't that sound like an ad for Whole Paycheck Foods? Frankly, if he really cared, he would devote more energy into getting people greater access to affordable, healthy, chemical-free foods. But, as we can see even in his own company, corporations still see it as a prime opportunity to charge people top dollar to access such foods, whereas cheap, nutrient-poor foods that are slowly poisoning us are what most people are forced to deal with.

Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices.

Lovely brochure copy, but such flowery language falls flat when the only people who can ultimately live up to this are the wealthy in America. But, after all, unless you're wealthy, who the fuck cares about you?

 

[VintagePunk]

^ Nice post, Melon.

The more I think of this issue, the angrier I get. What I want to know is this: the grassroots supporters that got Obama elected in the first place, where are they all through this? Why is the right allowed to set the tone of this discussion/distort the facts/manipulate discourse? The left needs to get out there and dispel the myths, and basically out-shout the right.

I'm not saying you're all doing nothing, of course, but you need numbers, just like you needed (and had) during the primary and election season. Mobilize, just like you all did then! Don't let this chance slip away without being heard, because who knows when it'll come up again.

 

[INDY500]

Thanks for actually reading the piece and giving your opinion.

Maybe some others will chime in and not to pick on you but I'm afraid that,

1) The right some feel to healthcare includes the right to expect someone else to pay for it.
2) Some will continue to confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.
3) Some will ignore the economics of markets and instead trust in government to set prices and dictate choices.
4) Some will ignore the tens of trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities in Medicaid and Medicare and think we should enlarge the role of government in the healthcare system even further.

we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment

Good luck trying to tell your insurance company what you want to have, particularly when even the highest deductible option, presuming that you're perfectly healthy, is still probably too expensive to have.

That's pure speculation on your part.

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)

The sheer purpose of high-deductible insurance is to discourage ever using it, while allowing insurance companies to continue to collect premiums. So let's figure this out. Is the purpose of health care reform to get people to buy insurance policies they can't effectively use or to make health care affordable for people who are sick? If it's the latter, then high-deductible insurance plans and HSAs are not the solution--just a contributor to the existing problem.

The sheer purpose is that you purchase routine care yourself and rely on insurance for truly expensive procedures. Like the analogy with car insurance. You buy the gas, wax, tune-ups and new tires, your insurance covers expensive accidents. Why is healthcare any different really?

Quote:
Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

Again, to reap tax benefits, you have to have the money to spend in the first place. Health insurance, even at the crappiest level, is too expensive for most people to purchase on their own.

Expensive because of state mandates that all policies sold must include X,Y & Z. whether you want or need them. Insurance prices differ greatly from state to state for this very reason.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

Perfect. So our non-competitive insurance companies that already look for excuses not to cover insured ailments can now continue to charge just as much and cover even less. And if you don't like it? Tough!

Wrong, they will offer all types of policies with à la carte options. You want high-premium, kitchen-sink, nothing out-of-pocket fine, but don't force that on everyone.

Enact tort reform

An idea that looks good on paper, but how much has this idea been thought out? If, through medical malpractice, a family member is now stuck with a complication that will require treatment that will cost millions of dollars to effectively treat over a lifetime, are we to tell them that they are only entitled to partial payment, and, thus, will have to treat the doctor's mistake themselves out-of-pocket? It's always nice to advocate that "other people" be forced to deal with less, but I wouldn't doubt that everyone wants their own family members fully covered in such circumstances. Americans, after all, ultimately believe in fairness.

How about starting with loser pays in cases to weed out frivolous lawsuits?

how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges.

Poor people who do not have effective access to food and shelter are provided it by the government, both through food stamps and government-subsidized housing. In this case, however, not only is health insurance prohibitive in cost to the poor, it is also out-of-access to much of the middle class, unless it is employer-provided. It is quite clear that the private system is broken, and the private sector has failed to adhere to capitalistic practices of "supply and demand." Instead, we have a system that deals with inelastic demand and supply costs that are allowed to rise exponentially without limit.

We have healthcare programs for the poor and no one is talking about ending those.

Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices.

Lovely brochure copy, but such flowery language falls flat when the only people who can ultimately live up to this are the wealthy in America. But, after all, unless you're wealthy, who the fuck cares about you?

Guess I have more faith in the American people than you.

 

[anitram]

How about starting with loser pays in cases to weed out frivolous lawsuits?

Because an unsuccessful judgment in court is an indication that your action was frivolous. Wow, you have a simplistic view of litigation.

 

[BVS]

3) Some will ignore the economics of markets and instead trust in government to set prices and dictate choices.

You keep saying this, you've been shown more than a dozen times that this isn't true, but you just choose to ignore it. The market is not dictating prices, insurance companies are dictating prices.

The sheer purpose is that you purchase routine care yourself and rely on insurance for truly expensive procedures. Like the analogy with car insurance. You buy the gas, wax, tune-ups and new tires, your insurance covers expensive accidents. Why is healthcare any different really?

This would be a good analogy if an oil change and a phyical cost about the same, or if new cars came with pre-existing conditions, or IF LIFE COULD BE COMPARED TO A CAR.

Expensive because of state mandates that all policies sold must include X,Y & Z. whether you want or need them. Insurance prices differ greatly from state to state for this very reason.

Well healthcare is different from state to state. Podiatry for example: some states allow podiatrists to work all the way up to the knee, others the ankle, and others don't even allow them to work on the hindfoot.

How about starting with loser pays in cases to weed out frivolous lawsuits?

And will you or the insurance companies decide if it's frivolous or not?

Guess I have more faith in the American people than you.

It doesn't sound like it, sounds like you have a lot faith in insurance companies.

 

[melon]

Thanks for actually reading the piece and giving your opinion.

No problem. I enjoy commenting on well thought-out articles (and the founder & CEO of Whole Foods, whether one agrees with him or not, is known for those kinds of pieces).

Maybe some others will chime in and not to pick on you but I'm afraid that,

1) The right some feel to healthcare includes the right to expect someone else to pay for it.
2) Some will continue to confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.
3) Some will ignore the economics of markets and instead trust in government to set prices and dictate choices.
4) Some will ignore the tens of trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities in Medicaid and Medicare and think we should enlarge the role of government in the healthcare system even further.

Under normal circumstances, I'm all for an expansion of free markets and coming up with ideas that do not involve more government. Generally speaking, I tend to agree that government does not make many things more efficient.

On the other hand, after weighing all the options here and looking at the facts on the ground, rather than the solution that best fits my ideological leanings, I think we have only three quite extreme options:

1) National health care, with all costs highly regulated to prevent the unequal relationship between the patient and the health care industry. As it currently stands, the private sector is wholly broken, because we have developed a situation where health care is subject to inelastic demand (i.e., if you have an infection that requires antibiotics, you have two choices: treatment at whatever the doctor and pharmaceutical companies want to charge or death), and, as such, unchecked supply costs allowing for a limitless ability to charge whatever they want.

2) Private health insurance, with all practices and costs regulated to guarantee access to health care for everyone (so that the sick aren't weeded out of the system like is done currently) and to prevent costs from spiralling into infinity. I would also mandate that all health care insurance and hospitals be required to register as non-profit corporations to again remove the incentive to overcharge.

3) Ban health insurance entirely for everyone--rich, poor, young, old, sick and healthy--and force the entire system into a free market scenario, where health care supply would be forced into being priced into only what people can afford. Hence, no more $500 doctor visits just to be prescribed an antibiotic, because the market may only accept a doctor fee of $40. In this scenario, obviously, all excess and the high lifestyle that many in the health care industry feel entitled to are decimated.

That's pure speculation on your part.

Not at all. Have you tried researching private health insurance? My family has. It's very expensive, with high deductibles, and the coverage is poor.

The sheer purpose is that you purchase routine care yourself and rely on insurance for truly expensive procedures. Like the analogy with car insurance. You buy the gas, wax, tune-ups and new tires, your insurance covers expensive accidents. Why is healthcare any different really?

"Routine care"--which I'm not sure how you'd define it--is still billed in the hundreds of dollars or more by the medical industry. If you need car repairs and can't afford them, you end up not driving you car for a while or fixing it yourself. If you need health care and can't afford it, you end up dead. They are not morally equivalent scenarios.

Expensive because of state mandates that all policies sold must include X,Y & Z. whether you want or need them. Insurance prices differ greatly from state to state for this very reason.

They must not mandate very much, because, again, researching private insurance costs, a crappy plan with a high deductible that only covers in emergencies--much like what you advocate--is still very expensive.

Wrong, they will offer all types of policies with à la carte options. You want high-premium, kitchen-sink, nothing out-of-pocket fine, but don't force that on everyone.

If you're in the industry of selling insurance, but not actually paying out, why not, as an insurance company, craft a plan that is barely affordable, but covers very little, while making all other plans that actually do cover anything very expensive? Do you really think that the relationship with the consumer and the insurance company is at all balanced to allow for negotiation? It is--and always is--"take it or leave it." There is always a presumption that people buying insurance buy it with the intention of using it, and "using" your health insurance is not at all what these companies want.

How about starting with loser pays in cases to weed out frivolous lawsuits?

Those kinds of options are already present at the judge's discretion, if the case was truly frivolous and maliciously intended. Chances are, as much as I sympathize with doctors on this front, many of the cases are actually quite legitimate, especially if the judge rules in their favour. If health care costs were reigned in through regulation, so that medical malpractice cases that would normally cost millions to treat over a lifetime in our current system would only cost maybe six figures over a lifetime to treat, I presume that that would do much to limit the impact of tort costs.

Basically, I ask, why enact "tort reform" that limits what victims can recover, but not "health care reform" that limits the costs in the first place, particularly since supply costs are clearly out of control? Why is business guaranteed limitless profit, while wronged individuals must suffer statutory limitation?

We have healthcare programs for the poor and no one is talking about ending those.

Again, these programs are only available to the very poor. Health care is still prohibitively expensive even to the middle class, particularly if you look at the kind of individuals who are declaring bankruptcy, due to medical bills.

Guess I have more faith in the American people than you.

Or, more likely, my stances are based on evidence of what's actually happening on the ground, rather than insisting on a doctrinaire, ideologically-based answer to everything. As it is, the private sector has failed in its 40-year, for-profit health care experiment, and I'm not sure why we expect it to ever get better without massive changes.

 

[melon]

Here's a good indicator of where for-profit health care's priorities lie:

Elusive search for cellulite cure continues - CNN.com

Elusive search for cellulite cure continues

(CNN) -- Beverly Hunt is a mover and a shaker. A public relations executive who runs her own business in Laurel, Maryland, Hunt believes in looking good. She keeps active and stays in shape.

But she has one slight problem that drives her crazy: No matter how much she exercises, she can't get rid of her cellulite.

"I'm in my mid-40s," she admits. "And no matter how well you try to take care of yourself and what your weight is, what I've noticed is your body changes. And I have some cellulite, predominantly on my thighs."

Cellulite: the word women fear and men rarely notice. More than 90 percent of women develop some type of cellulite in their lifetime, while few men ever experience "cottage cheese" thighs.

Doctors believe that's because estrogen plays a big role in cellulite formation: It appears that excess estrogen causes a weakening of connective tissue, which allows fat to bulge up under the skin, creating cellulite.

"Whether they're thin or heavy, a gym rat or a couch potato, cellulite is one of those things most women face," says Dr. Howard Brooks, a professor at Howard University in Washington, D.C., and the director of Skin Cosmetic Dermatology of Georgetown. "It doesn't matter if that woman is black, white, Asian; it doesn't matter if that woman eats right, does everything right -- cellulite can still develop."

Because it can be genetic, doctors say one of the best ways to judge how much cellulite you'll develop as you get older is to look at your mother's thighs.

"I would say that there is a bit of cellulite that runs in the family," Hunt admits with a grin.

Brooks says there are a couple of things you can do to curb your cellulite:

Quit smoking. Lighting up damages connective tissue, which causes wrinkling.

Watch your weight. Fat is fat; the more fat you carry, the more cellulite.

Exercise the legs and buttocks. "Instead of all these fancy creams and quick fixes, invest in a treadmill," Brooks says. He explains that exercise can firm up the skin. Cellulite is "still there, but it decreases the appearance," Brooks says.

Eat smart. But Brooks says no particular food can increase or decrease cellulite. "Diet does not really play a role," he says. "I say that, but I say that with a caveat: You do want to -- just for general health purposes -- eat right, of course." Maintaining a healthy lifestyle decreases the appearance of cellulite.

Because women hate the look of cellulite, myriad "treatments" and "cures" have been hyped, ranging from dietary supplements and cellulite creams to mechanical procedures. But health experts agree: There are no permanent solutions.

Although the American Academy of Dermatology addresses the myths surrounding cellulite and its many supposed cures, the group offers no advice for how to get rid of it. The AAD warns women that liposuction, a very popular procedure for removing excess fat, does not rid the body of cellulite. That's because after liposuction, fat eventually replaces itself in the body. Liposuction can actually make the appearance of cellulite worse by physically breaking down the connective tissue, which creates even more depressions in the skin.

There are two FDA-approved laser treatments designed to break down fat to temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite: One combines light therapy with suction; the other combines light therapy with massage. The drawbacks? Both treatments require multiple sessions -- as well as maintenance therapy -- to create and maintain the effect. And they are expensive: A series of treatments can cost more than $2,000, and the results are temporary.

Although Brooks tries to explain to his patients that cellulite is one of those things that "you have to live with," he will recommend the FDA-approved treatment consisting of massage and laser treatments -- but only to patients who are desperate to get rid of their dimples and are willing to pay the high price.

"The reason why this works is, we're squeezing that tissue and squeezing that fat and cellulite so hard that we're re-dispersing it and it's no longer in the top layer of the skin -- it's at the bottom layer, so we can't see it any longer," Brooks explains. "But unfortunately, this isn't permanent, and you need a lot of treatments. There is no miracle."

But Beverly Hunt believes in miracles; she is currently undergoing massage with laser treatments. She feels it's worth it. Anything, she says, to rid her fit body of the puckering on her thighs -- even just for a little while.

"Well, it's not a good look," she says of cellulite, especially in bathing-suit season. "It really isn't. I'm at the age where one-pieces are a must, but I'd like to know that -- if you take the time to exercise and you attempt to eat right -- you'd at least look healthy."

And just think: government bureaucrats might force Beverly to be on a waiting list to get rid of her cellulite, while some poor people get life threatening third-degree burns repaired first.

 

[maycocksean]

The tenor of this discussion is a little closer to what we should be having at these townhall meetings.

 

[maycocksean]

Thanks for actually reading the piece and giving your opinion.

Maybe some others will chime in and not to pick on you but I'm afraid that,

1) The right some feel to healthcare includes the right to expect someone else to pay for it.
2) Some will continue to confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.
3) Some will ignore the economics of markets and instead trust in government to set prices and dictate choices.

Perhaps its more the idea that we all should pay our share, just as we do for education, road repairs etc. I also don't think it's so much that some "trust" government so much. It's just I don't trust the private sector either.

Expensive because of state mandates that all policies sold must include X,Y & Z. whether you want or need them. Insurance prices differ greatly from state to state for this very reason.

Without those mandates, what's to stop insurance companies from refusing to pay for certain types of care. Some of your solutions sound appealing but I'd want to know what you're going to do reign in the power of the insurance companies? I don't see how that can happen without regulation.

How about starting with loser pays in cases to weed out frivolous lawsuits?

What if the loser's lawsuit wasn't frivolous but they lost any way?

Guess I have more faith in the American people than you.

Let's not romanticize the American people. People are people, and at least from our mutual faith perspective, you know what we believe about basic human nature. The American people, like people everywhere want themselves and their families to be safe and healthy--they also want to spend as little as possible and make as much money as possible. That's people. That's the American people.

 

[martha]

Without those mandates, what's to stop insurance companies from refusing to pay for certain types of care.

Ask Blue Cross in California about that.

 

[martha]

I read comments like this and realize how fortunate we are here in Canada not to have to choose between treating catastrophic injuries or mundane illnesses.

Socialist.

 

[maycocksean]

What I'd be interested in is a conseravtive plan that actual gives patients some real power and real choice, rather than giving all the power to the "market" (i.e. the insurance companies).