Does anyone have any views on mandatory health insurance? It seems to be a pretty big topic among possible presidential candidates? I was interested in people's views on this. It seems like a good idea. But, some people are saying it is unconstitutional because the constitution( or maybe it was the bill of rights, I'd have to go look it up again) says that the gov. can't make anyone enter into a contract with any person or organization against their will. I'm undecided about this. Maybe this is more of a political question. Just wondering!

N0help4u

I have no health insurance but I can't see forcing anybody to have to have health insurance if they do not want it. I am tired of the government telling us what we must have and do and what we can and can't. I do better on my herbal remedies than anybody my age that the doctors have on tons of different prescriptions. I think it is a way for the pharmacies to make even more money. Whatever happened that Hillary flipped from wanted socialized health care to this mandatory health insurance? I guess that 5,000. she wants for every newborn can go directly to the mandated health insurance?

excon

Hello nikki:

I think the insurance companies should butt OUT of the equation. The government should just pay the doctors bills and that's that. No bureaucracy and no forced nothing on anybody (including doctors) - just check writing. They do that pretty good.

Certainly, if you took out what the insurance companies make in profit, and it's in the jillions, what people pay in insurance premiums would be converted into taxes and then we could easily pay for EVERYBODY'S heath care. Yes, the doctors could still earn six figure incomes.

It IS true, that if you want toys installed on your chest, or a quick tummy tuck, you'll have to pay extra. That's fine with me. However, if we nationalized the pharmaceutical industry at the same time, we'd have enough money left over for tummy tucks too....

That’s a hell of thing to be called for by a libertariain – but health care should be like the highways – free for everybody to use. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

excon

michealb

I like that idea so then I can have my doctor bill the government for 3x what the service cost and give back 50% of what he bills the government for. So I can make a profit going to the doctor.
or...
The government is going to set a price that they will pay for each procedure which will be below the average cost cause the goverment picks the lowest bidder and I end up getting my spleen taken out by Dr. Nick who was suppose to take out my gall bladder.

The government needs to take the libitarian stance on this and empower the people. Right now people don't get health insurance cause they don't need it. They get great care going to the emergancy room everytime the have stuffed up nose. The government needs to back off and let hospital turn away people that don't have a life threating situation. The government needs to do something about frivialous lawsuits and unfair pay outs. The government needs to make it so that health insureance companies have a reason to keep cost low. Maybe then people will get the idea that they need health insurance and can afford it.

Fr_Chuck

I guess part of the trouble is that everyone today in the US does have some level of health insurance, the trouble of it, is too many don't pay for it, they get it by having no private insurance and just showing up sick at the ER where the doctors have to see you. They can't pay the bill, so it is passed on to you and me who do have insurance and pay the bills.

BABRAM

I have a concern that seems to get put on the back burner when it comes to health reform. Some doctors are in a good habit about asking how certain medicines or procedures will effect your budget. However, many don't and will zap you and your insurance provider with reckless overcharging.



Bobby

RichardBondMan

Present system is "broken", too many people still uninsured... Taxpayers, hospitals, doctors, clinics are passing the cost along to those who pay ins premiums resulting in high med ins cost to those who can afford and can qualify for med insurance. But WE DO NOT NEED mandatory health insurance nor the govt regulation, intervention that would accompany such mandatory insurance. I do not know what the answer is .... sorry

BABRAM

I agree. There has to be some sort of regulatory in place though. The traditional thought is that if a person is unsatisfied with the expenses or practice, the patient could shop elsewhere for a new doctor/clinic. But the whole thing is so out of sorts that doctor shopping is just a temporary fix. Most of us are tired of making payments on our physician's new Benz.


Bobby

tomder55

Let me throw out a proposition. We get car insurance not to pay for oil changes and 1 year maintainance checks but for more major work . Perhaps the same principle should apply to medical insurance. Maybe only catastrophic or higher expense procedures should be covered as a basic plan. Do you think that would help control the costs ?

ETWolverine

Tom, that was the original idea behind health insurance... catastrophic care coverage, not day-to-day care.

The problem with health coverage started when insurance companies stated getting involved with day-to-day coverage. Once the day-to-day coverage became the norm, and insurance companies, rather than individuals, became the primary payment method of the medical industry, the result was that insurance companies were able to force price fixing into the system. In order to compensate (and get compensated), doctors had to find ways to "game" the system... extra tests, multiple diagnoses, over-treatment, etc. The result was rising medical costs. The same thing happened for pharmaceutical companies.

In my opinion, this can be fixed by doing exactly what you just said... get insurane companies out of the day-to-day care business and leave them in place for catastrophic coverage only. That way they have less of a say in the industry, the price-fixing ends, and doctors and pharmaceutical companies can stop gaming the system and just charge a fair market rate for care.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is tort reform. The ability of individuals to frivolously sue health care providers for unreasonable sums of money forces practitioners to pay huge sums for malpractice insurance coverage. A typical Ob-Gyn these days pays most of his income to insurance companies... even if he has never been sued. Without that coverage, they can't practice. And it isn't the malpractice insurance companies faults either... they have a risk of having to pay out millions for every suit or claim, a risk which is too often met, and they need to make money too. So they charge huge amounts for their coverage. So the doctors have to charge more for care in order to cover their insurance expenses. And we get screwed.

The only way to stop this is through tort reform. But what type of tort reform? For years we have heard about capping the amounts of the suits, caping punitive awards, setting time limits, etc. I have a different idea.

My idea is to set up grand-juries for civil cases.

In a criminal case, a grand jury determined whether the prosecutors have enough of a case to charge the defendant and go forward with the case. Cases where the grand jury feels that the prosecutor does not have enough to go forward are rejected.

I would like to see a similar system put in place for civil suits, especially medical malpractice cases. That would accomplish several things:

- Frivolous suits will be kicked out of court early in the process, but cases with merit will continue forward. We would not have to limit awards, because only cases with real merit will go forward. The cases without merit will stop wasting the court's time and money.

- Plaintiffs will ALWAYS get their cases heard by a jury, if only a grand jury, so they will always have the chance to have their case heard. And if they can't convince a grand jury that there is a case, they probably would not have been able to convince a petite jury either.

- Wait times for civil cases will be shorter.

- Outrageous awards for frivolous cases will be limitted without limiting the awards for cases with merit.

- Because there will be fewer cases going to trial, malpractice insurance costs will decrease, and insurance premiums will follow. This in turn will lower doctors' expenses and thus medical care costs to individuals.

In my opinion, it's a win-win situation for everyone, including the plaintiffs, the defendants, the courts, the insurance companies, the doctors and the patients.

So that's my idea. Now... how do I go about presenting it to law-makers?

excon

Hello El:

It already IS law. If a judge thinks a lawsuit is frivolous, he can dismiss it. That decision can be appealed. If several judges together DON’T think a lawsuit is frivolous, I’d believe ‘em. You don’t. I dunno why.

Yes, I do. Because you are bummed that some lady got rich because she spilled coffee in her lap. And, because of that anomaly, you want to take away everybody else’s right to sue.

Like most right wingers, you never consider how the laws you want to make work where the rubber meets the road. However, let me make a supposition. If your family member was maimed, I’ll bet you wouldn’t want your award to be capped….

excon