>I suspect from your tone ("insurance co. vampires") that you do think that
>insurance companies are a (the?) main problem.
Not problem, enemy.
>I admit my perception is
>clouded by the fact that insurance companies and even large purchasers
>of insurance are relatively weak where I live. It is also hard not to listen
>to stories like Doug's mom's $21,000 broken arm and not see that as the major
>problem.
So, you're saying they did too much to fix her arm? Or you're saying too many people took a cut and made a profit?
>Insurance companies do add largely unnecessary complexity and are the cruel
>bearer of "harsh realities" to many people. However, a major cause of
>problems in the US and probably the most important one to tackle, is the
health
>delivery system as well as the industries that supply it.
If it's cost containment you're after, elimination of private health insurance can drastically reduce tests and procedures which are done for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits. The malpractice boom in this country is driven in large part by victims' need to pay for their health care for the rest of their lives. In a universal system you don't see that kind of litigiousness because people are not in fear that they won't be able to get care. That will have affects on car insurance, too.
Politically, health insurance companies are the main enemy. They're the ones who spend the money to make sure no viable reforms ever land on the table. They're the ones buying the politicians.
They're also completely unloved by the population. People in the U.S. know that insurance companies are the ones charging them money and denying them care. Try asking people to sign a petition to get the insurance companies out of health care.
>To relate back to Jordan's point there are many problems related to
>health care delivery and government cost control in Canada. Politically
speaking,
>creating single-payer in the United States may solve many problems but there
will
>be trade-offs between benefits and taxes. Inherently socializing insurance
>without strong formal controls over the strength of drug companies,
hospitals,
>doctors is guaranteed to have problems.
>
>Solving the average families horrors over
>co-pays, coinsurance, exclusions, high deductibles, and massive premiums
>are worthwhile benefits of single-payer but I doubt it would be politically
>sustainable at the the tax rates necessary to fund it if the current health
>care delivery system and drug co. propaganda remain in place.
We're paying for it out of our paychecks now. The struggle is to show that taxes are a better (and cheaper) way to fund healthcare than private insurance.
It would be politically sustainable if progressive taxation were taken up by an opposition political party...
>In my experience, health care reform supporters are usually well versed
>in discussing the waste/inefficiency around insurance. However, they seem
>to be pretty naive about the scope of medical care inefficiency and the scope
>of death/dollars that go into unnecessary care (and I'm not talking about
>"alternative" medicine here in case someone was wondering--I am simply
>about applying evidence based, quality, patient centered care to the
population).
Universal systems do cost less and experience smaller increases. So there's something going on there, right? Whether it's a health service or public insurance, the government still has a lot of say about pricing, being the most important (or only) game in town. This is why the Bush admin. put a specific provision in the Medicare prescription drug bill that the gov't CAN'T negotiate down prices. Negotiating down prices follows a publicly funded system like night follows day. That's why some rightwingers opposed the drug benefit, even though it was a big giveaway to the ins. and drug cos., they said that eventually, since it's publicly funded, there will be--horrors!--cost containment like the VA does.
Jenny Brown