Universal Catastrophic Health Care

I would like to hear what other DU'rs think...

What about having a universal health care system with a high deductable. Now before you throw the idea away.. think about it. Everyone gets fundamental "insurance" from a single pool government system, and everything above 10,000 is taken care of.

This leaves the insurance companies to provide what should be fairly inexpensive 10k insurance supplements, possibly that must be provided by employers? If you have a major illness you are out 10,000 max, which most of the population could find a way to pay for, via loan or whatever, that is if it was not covered by supplimental insurance.

There could be low income programs, loans or grants, for the poor or for someone who is in a spot? I would imagine charities would spring up that could help with individual cases..., and it would be possible for even a neighborhood to help someone in need.

OK. Now I know there must be holes in this. But it seems like it might be less expensive, yet a way to cover serious illness for all?

Let me have it! ;)

It still means that basic, good health care would be out of reach for so many.

Ever hear of the concept of PREVENTIVE care?

The poor would have means tested suppliments, like medicare already is.

Learn first what is REALLY good and feasible for everyone, rather than trying to twist the current mess into something you think is palatable.

How can we dialog and discuss if everyone is turned into an opponent.

done, and what is best for all?

It's right there for you to take advantage of.

Preventative should be mandatory, but those with problems shouldn't be simply thrown onto the curb.

A Cat only policy is a cost shifter - which is why the seniors got angry and rejected it after it was passed and in effect back in the 80's.

A real "been there, tried it, didn't like it" concept.

What it does do is reduce a bit the premiums charge by health insurance companies, and by eliminating cat risk over charges (over charges because the insurance companies MUST be 99% sure they are not in danger of losing their capital that supports their "risk"), the overall cost (Insurance company plus government) of the health care system has a small, more or less one time, decrease in cost.

So it does save a few pennies, that I suspect will be eaten quickly by insurance companies "increasing inadequate margins" and taking even more profit. "overhead", and massive senior management -CEO salaies out of our health care system.

I once designed health policies, did the math to predict profitability, sold the pricing to the rest of the management, and filed the loss ratio reports with the states.

This idea is a minor cost saver that does little/nothing to improve public health or to reduce our health costs by the 15 to 20% that is the instant savings of going to Medicare for all.

Just say no -

Medicare for all is the only solution.

Edward's Plan might get us to Medicare for all by the back door, but I doubt it as that part would not make it through the Congress, and would be sacrificed to the good of getting a universal coverage plan in place - and we would continue with insurance companies draining the health system dollars for no good reason other than their ability to fund political races.

One last time - Medicare for all is the only solution. :-)

Those who really need coverage won't be able to get it, high deductible or not. Most bankruptcies are health-related, and a majority of those folks have insurance.....that won't cover what needs to be done.

Universal, single-payer health care is the best solution, the least expensive and most comprehensive solution.

In 2005, the US spent 2.8 Trillion dollars on health care, and about 1/3 of that was spent on paperwork to try to get someone else to pay.

This is insane, folks. Get the insurance companies out of the way, and things get much easier.

Sure, having a debt of 10k might bancrupt some, but not many, and you won't loose your house over it. Of course the tax and bancrupcy laws should support the system. I still am not sure I am hearing a good argument against it?

People who can't afford health insurance would be no better off. So, health insurance companies would have even greater profits and the working poor would subsidize the health care costs of others.

I don't believe there's any better option than Single Payer Universal Health Care - aka "Medicare For All." As a first phase, Medicare could be extended to cover everyone at age fifty and above. The immediate benefit of removing the disincentive of companies employing older people would have widespread benefits, not the least of which would be increased Payroll Taxes. As a proponent of Universal National Service, I'd advocate for the growth of the Public Health Service. It'd provide a vehicle for training, jobs, and health care - the kind of "trifecta" I can support.

is just fine!

And, doncha know, it's just tooooo haaaarrrddd to work to eliminate the insurance profits!

Much easier to keep scheming for what would work for *them* and to hell with the rest.

:mad:

OK. So if employers over 50 employees are required to offer a 10k supplimental plan? Shouldn't that help?

You need to learn what is effective, rather than trying to sell something that only hurts poor folk more, and keeps the insurance companies fat and happy.

Be willing to learn, rather than getting incensed at the idea.

Some folks have been thinking about this (and researching) for a while. I'm personally very adamant in opposing any linkage whatsoever between an employer and individual health care - even as much as I'm opposed to health care providers being health care insurers: the recipe for DEATH PROFITEERING. The "health care benefit" is one of the absolute WORST things that employers have latched onto in the last 60 years - even worse than company stock and incentive stock options. When an employer can fire an employee for smoking - ON THEIR OWN TIME AND OFF COMPANY PREMISES - and rationalize it as a health insurance cost measure, we've flown off to Cloud CuckooLand.

But I think that is a seperate issue. Should an employer be able to look up your credit history for a non-financial position? Should insurance companies be able to use credit to determine auto premiums. Those are all immoral issues in my mind. But they require regulation. I am not sure that the problem is the source but rather the access that is allowed and condoned?

but it might just work. The 'policy' for employers/employees and those who were unemployed would be available then and those premiums would have to low since it covers only 10k. Those who couldn't afford it would need to be covered on a sliding scale. I would rather not but if it is all we can get it would be better than the mess we have now. This needs some thought.

I had catastrophic health insurance. Had two surgeries in 2 years. Wound up owing over $8,000. If you're paying off massive debt, you can't afford to keep up maintenance health visits and MRIs, etc.
Owing that $8,000 catapulted us into bankruptcy.

But wouldn't your employer paid 10k policy take care of the resulting costs you mention?

Maybe it needs to also be "single payer" or some regulations that restrict insurance companies from singling out pre-existing conditions.

I am thinking the supplimental would be $50-100 a month, and you would be able to choose deductables in it too? Like car insurance? We do exactly this with car insurance?

You insure that which is unpredictable and you fund that which is predictable. Your proposal is the complete opposite of the logical solution, give every one basic healthcare and insure the catastrophic claims.

I am not proposing this as the best. Only as a compromise that would cover people. Do you really thing America will accept a European style HCS? Not now. There would be so much money thrown at advertising that it would be closed by sheeple in no time and we would have nothing. Whatever we get will be a compromise.

I've got a family member who was just this week in the hospital because he had an ingrown toenail, no health insurance. Simple as that.
He couldn't afford to take time off from work because he has 0 sick days.
You need to get out more and see how the other half lives.

Well said!

The caste polarization is amazing.

:hi:

I see your point though. What about the person who has a lower middle income job but no money for regular visits?

It is not perfect. But it would be much better than what we have now. Do you really thing we can get universal care immediately? I think it will take 10 or 15 years. I would rather we have intermediate steps, whether it be something like this or another setup and save some lives in the interim?

What we have right now is killing people.

Moving catastrophic cases out of group insurance was part of Kerry's insurance proposal. In exchange for the federal taking catastrophic cases, participating group plans would implement a preventive health plan and guarantee reduced premium costs would pass through. That was only one part, it also included subsidies for buying into one of the federal insurance plans, an unemployed plan, and automatic health care for every child. Put together, it would have reduced rates and covered almost everybody in the country, without insurance requirements.

If people would need to take out loans to pay for the first 10K, that's proof that it doesn't go far enough. It could provide improved benefit to those who are currently paying for good employer group plans if the first 10K was a pre-tax deductible, but it wouldn't represent a savings for all currently insured.

Furthermore, the higher out-of-pocket costs are, the less likely that people will take advantage of preventative care or early medical intervention when problems are still minor. There is considerable literature on this. Here's an excerpt from the New England Journal of Medicine discussing this effect:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/12/1202

simply biting the bullet and establishing a comprehensive national health care plan. The only way it makes sense to me is if universal catastrophic was a temporary phase leading to full national health coverage on an established, expedient time table. The notion that we should pay for the first $$$ of health cost is driven by insurance companies trying to minimize utilization (and therefore control costs) while national health would encourage utilization of preventative medicine and early intervention with a view to saving money long term by having a healthier populace.

Not catastrophic, not low income, just universal healthcare for everyone.
It's time to get over the idea that a single payer healthcare system is a bad thing.

This is not impossible to do. It only takes will.

"If we could eliminate AIDS by giving everyone in the world one potable glass of water every day, we could not do it." 'And The Band Played On.' - Randy Shilts or maybe 'Betrayal of Trust' or 'The Coming Plague', Laurie Garrett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On

(I know, Wikipedia is always suspect.)

at the reality, and what so many doctors are advocating.

It's soooo much more fun to try to concoct schemes that don't change the status quo.

It's our basic division in this society. It's all "me", and not "us".

Not that I totally agree, however the final solution will not be simple, so it's good to discuss.

I think perhaps the major problem we have is that people think that medical care is some kind of luxury or privilege.

Most people not living in the third world agree that medical care isn't some kind of luxury.

I don't understand why we must constantly compare ourselves with Mexico or Bangladesh to find the ways we're better.

I thoroughly agree that, economically, we can't just open our borders up and, let anyone who can afford the cost of an airplane ticket get millions of dollars of healthcare for their cancer, etc., HOWEVER, I think the whole concept of there being lazy welfare mothers, and they don't "deserve" healthcare, blaw blaw blaw is FASCIST.

The bottom line, SERIOUSLY, is that, per CAPITA, we spend MUCH more than other industrialized nations for healthcare, yet, when you look at the metrics, aren't getting the RESULTS.

I think the starting point is to see what these other countries have been doing RIGHT (and not just focus on one country, eg: Canada) and learn by their examples.

PS: fuck the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals. They made their money, now let them invest it in something else besides viagra research.

There are "third world" countries that have better health care than the US, and precisely because, as you say, they--as a society--dont' see health care as a luxury or a priviledge.

It's time for we USians to GET IT.

I have lived in a "2cd world" country and experienced their system. While everyone gets care, ours is better as full of problems as it is. I would prefer not to go in that direction.

There are things you don't know because you don't want to educate yourself.

As I said, there are THIRD WORLD countries with better health care than the US.

Can you tell me off the top of your head what the ranking of the US is on the WHO list?

The ranking I have seen have placed the US below many 1st world countries, but we are still above 3rd world countries. Can you provide the location that says otherwise? I can't find what you are talking about...

it might work for those who already have good health insurance. It will not help the uninsured, those who have paid premiums for decades and lost their coverage once they had a medical problem, or those who are currently in debt and disabled.

Universal Catastrophic coverage...wasn't that provided under Kennedy-Kassabaum? The only problem is too many people are paying huge sums of money and getting very little in return!

I have a medi-gap policy that pays for everything that Medicare doesn't with no deductibles or co-pays. It costs me more than $200 a month, but at least it isn't robbing me of premiums while I still have to pay for medical care.

have an extra 10K a year to cover the 'precatastrophic' costs. And b) most employers of those lower income wage earners would opt to cut hours (to where one wouldn't qualify for a 10K policiy) and just employ more part-timers.

This would just perpetuate if not exacerbate the problems for those who earn too much for medicare but don't work in jobs that provice health care. This would bring those folks less but cost them more (by needing to work more jobs - at part-time status as employers dodge paying health insurance). For many, the unintended consequences would surpass the intended benefits.

First, educate yourself on single payer universal health care at this website run by Havard doctors, Physicians for a National Health Plan:

http://www.pnhp.org.

Secondly insurance companies are the reason we are in the mess we are in and quite honestly we don't need them. I did have a high deductible at one time and it didn't work out. First, the deductible only applied to what the insurance company accepted as something that they would pay for and at the price they would pay for it. For example, let's say I had a $100 doctor's visit and the insurance company felt the procedure should only be $80.

Most of the time the physician wouldn't accept their fee but usually accommodated me by sending in the bill which I had to pay up front. So by their calculations they approved 80% of that. Yes, they didn't include the co-pay. So it cost me 20% to 30% more to meet my deductible besides paying close to $400 a month in premiums. Of course I never met my deductible and even if I did, it would start all over again the following year.

So if I had cancer and expensive treatment for the cancer, I would still have to pay more than $3,000 a year in the deductible, 20% co-pay after all the while paying $400 a month in premiums and probably a lot more when I became a risk. Of course if I had cancer I wouldn't be able to work a lot, meaning I couldn't afford any of this anyway.

These plans are concocted by the health care industry for their benefit. They don't work. Plus, the high administrative costs that accompany pivatized health care keeps the money funneled into profits and advertising that should be used for the patient.

Medicare for all is the best solution.

:rofl: Repug business as usual.

To quote another poster in another thread today, "Your privilege is showing."

There are many people who could not afford that at all.

Not for me. Or you.

Regular checkups & treatment of "small" problems should be encouraged. The $10,000 deductible would not do that.

Such a policy would only encourage people to put off preventive care and care for non-emergency conditions (diabetes, high blood pressure) that have the potential to cause worse problems later.

for it. They like to get all the fees and do none of the funding of hospital stays.