PDA

View Full Version : Health Care Reform Needed - Yes or No



Henry V
08-16-2009, 10:00 PM
Just taking one step backward from Bruce's poll.

Franco
08-16-2009, 10:18 PM
What we need is not Health Care reform but, Health Insurance and Tort reform.

Last thing we need is government run Health Care!

luvalab
08-17-2009, 12:02 AM
What we need is not Health Care reform but, Health Insurance and Tort reform.

Last thing we need is government run Health Care!

I agree--but I think there is significant work that could be done on insurance reform; I could be convinced there are tort reform issues that could be worked on, but I am very leery of simple/blanket solutions I've heard proposed that may take away patients' rights to sue.

I'll interpret the question not as "health care reform" but as "health insurance" reform and vote "yes."

For the record, if the vast majority of the country is ever on board for single-payer national health insurance, I'm in! I consider that a very different animal than "government-run health care." But obviously now is not the time, and I'm not sure the time will ever come.

I think there are some very limited changes, that could be made while keeping the current system very much in tact, which could make big differences in peoples' lives--and that's where the efforts should be.

Marvin S
08-17-2009, 12:15 AM
What we need is not Health Care reform but, Health Insurance and Tort reform.

Last thing we need is government run Health Care!

Should we pay for illegals - NO
Should there be catastrophic insurance available - YES
Am I happy with the insurance I have - MOST of the time
Should anyone have insurance that covers all the costs - NO
Where I worked we had a 500K limit per family member - with a deductible - also had catastophic insurance which I carried. It worked fine, not a cadillac policy - but I'm not a cadillac ;)

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 06:31 AM
Should we pay for illegals - NO
Should there be catastrophic insurance available - YES
Am I happy with the insurance I have - MOST of the time
Should anyone have insurance that covers all the costs - NO
Where I worked we had a 500K limit per family member - with a deductible - also had catastophic insurance which I carried. It worked fine, not a cadillac policy - but I'm not a cadillac ;)
Marvin, I generally agree with you. However, the question is what is included in catastropic coverage. Obviously, the plan you had was not catastrophic coverage. A 500 K lifetime limit would have run out on my father and did run out on my mother. It's interesting that the "Obamacare" approach, using HR 3200 as an example, started out as an effort to define catastrophic care. It set a relatively high out of pocket cost limitation: $5000/person and $10000/family. It did not limit deductibles and coinsurance as long as coverage was provided for basic preventive care without such limits. The rationale for that was that these services reduce the cost of future care. However, most of the attacks on the plan have focused on the fact that it provides limited coverage, not on the fact that it covers too much. By definition, a catastrophic plan will not cover a lot of things and most people who have the means will opt to buy additional coverage. By the way, that was the approach used for Medicare. While coverage has expanded over time, it still does not cover many things for which recipients usually opt to buy additional coverage.

Bob Gutermuth
08-17-2009, 09:12 AM
If any reform is needed, it aint the package in the congress now, nor anything like it.

Steve Amrein
08-17-2009, 09:34 AM
If any of this is actually serious that the start would be tort reform.

Marvin S
08-18-2009, 01:43 PM
Marvin, I generally agree with you. However, the question is what is included in catastropic coverage. Obviously, the plan you had was not catastrophic coverage. A 500 K lifetime limit would have run out on my father and did run out on my mother. It's interesting that the "Obamacare" approach, using HR 3200 as an example, started out as an effort to define catastrophic care. It set a relatively high out of pocket cost limitation: $5000/person and $10000/family. It did not limit deductibles and coinsurance as long as coverage was provided for basic preventive care without such limits. The rationale for that was that these services reduce the cost of future care. However, most of the attacks on the plan have focused on the fact that it provides limited coverage, not on the fact that it covers too much. By definition, a catastrophic plan will not cover a lot of things and most people who have the means will opt to buy additional coverage. By the way, that was the approach used for Medicare. While coverage has expanded over time, it still does not cover many things for which recipients usually opt to buy additional coverage.

The 500K was on the general policy - the Cat policy was unlimited & covered the 7 most common events - cancer, etc. The Cat policy was only available while you worked, apparently they hoped you didn't draw too much retirement. ;-) BTW, I have the means & choose to self insure beyond Medicare.

I just don't believe that the taxpayer should be on the hook for those procedures not necessary to life. & do agree somewhat with idea of not paying for procedures that will not add value, whoever had that idea.

I reached the point that I realized AARP was not representing our interests - have'nt belonged in years. If they support something, it's generally suspect.

Ken Newcomb
08-18-2009, 03:30 PM
Start with tort reform and work from there.