Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 10th, 2017, 03:34 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I will argue that the extreme geographical constraints put on health insurance companies and other factors make it such that the health insurance industry is another example of an area far removed from free enterprise.
RNG, it’s constitutional for a medical insurance enterprise to establish individual subsidiary corporations within more than one state. Such subsidiary enterprises must comply to the regulations of the states having jurisdiction over policies sold to the individual purchasers. It’s constitutional for enterprises, (including medical insurers) to have their clerical tasks performed beyond the borders of our states’ or our entire nation.

I’m sure to the extent they determine performing any administrative tasks could be so outsourced at lesser costs, medical insurers have and will do so. In such a case subsidiary or even competing nation-wide enterprises could all be served by central single or multi out-of-state clerical service providers.

If insurance companies do not offer such out of state provisions imbedded within their insurance contracts, or they do not offer such riders to their insurance contracts, that’s due to their determination of what’s in their enterprises’ best interests.
If the states do not require the insurance enterprises to provide such options, I would suppose that the insurance industry has made that to be in the states’ legislators’ and/or their insurance regulators’ best interests.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old July 10th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #22
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Excerpted from 9Jul2017, posts of 8:03 PM and 10:58 PM:
RNG, I agree that it's at cost to the taxpayers; there's no free lunch.
Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn





Medical insurance rates reduced to reflect the insurers' lesser financial exposure to risks is not additional profit to the insurer.
Respectfully, Supposn
You are making the naive assumption that their lower costs would result in lower premiums. I argue they would result in higher executive bonuses.
RNG is offline  
Old July 10th, 2017, 02:11 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
You are making the naive assumption that their, [medical insurers] lower costs would result in lower premiums. I argue they would result in higher executive bonuses.
RNG, the general concept of product's lower costs inducing lower prices has more or less been the experience in all nations regardless of their economic systems. Insurance is a regulated industry within most, (if not all) USA states. Thus, for this concept within a state's medical insurance markets not to be valid, both the state's commercial market places and the state government's regulators would have failed.

Your post implies your mistrust of both government and non-government enterprises. what else is there?

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old July 10th, 2017, 02:45 PM   #24
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, the general concept of product's lower costs inducing lower prices has more or less been the experience in all nations regardless of their economic systems. Insurance is a regulated industry within most, (if not all) USA states. Thus, for this concept within a state's medical insurance markets not to be valid, both the state's commercial market places and the state government's regulators would have failed.

Your post implies your mistrust of both government and non-government enterprises. what else is there?

Respectfully, Supposn
So you are admitting that it isn't free enterprise in the health insurance industry. I don't trust the corporations and in this case, with the amount of money the industry has to contribute to political campaigns and to hire lobbyists, I don't believe the government is acting in the citizen's best interest. So yes, I mistrust both, in this instance.
RNG is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 06:15 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
So you are admitting that it isn't free enterprise in the health insurance industry. I don't trust the corporations and in this case, with the amount of money the industry has to contribute to political campaigns and to hire lobbyists, I don't believe the government is acting in the citizen's best interest. So yes, I mistrust both, in this instance.
RNG, stock exchanges and the brokerage firms that trade within them are subject to government regulations; insurance enterprises such as medical insurers are subject to government regulations; the corner candy store is subject to government regulations; but they all are “free enterprises”.
Naive children believe all things and concepts are absolutes with no nuances, but we expect their experiences will better instruct them.

I, and I suppose all other participants in this forum to some extent share your cynicism. But generally, the concept of product's lower costs inducing lower prices has been the experience in all nations regardless of their economic systems. I consider your arguing as otherwise to be foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 06:19 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Catastrophic Healthcare Act proposal:

The purpose of the proposed Catastrophic Healthcare Act is to reduce the financial consequences of catastrophic medical costs upon legal USA resident or citizens, their indebtedness to their medical providers that served them, and upon the costs of healthcare insurance plans that contribute to insure them.

I would suppose a federal individual patient’s catastrophic medical expense law would commence on the date when legally “covered healthcare” costs provided on behalf of an individual patient within the duration of that date and the prior 365 days, have attain a legally specified annual amount, (i.e. attained the “catastrophic-amount”).
Federal government upon commencement date is financially responsible for the legally “covered” healthcare costs provided on behalf of an individual patient.
Federal government’s financial-responsibility continues from commencement date until the patient experiences 365 consecutive days within which the legally “covered” healthcare costs provided on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic-amount.

The federal government annually adjusts the catastrophic-amount for the purpose of retaining the amount’s purchasing power.

Medical treatments and procedures that qualify as to be “covered healthcare” and the schedule of fees for them are specified by federal laws and regulations.

A legal USA resident or citizen’s entitlement to the benefits due to the Catastrophic Healthcare Act does not require the patient to have been covered by any medical insurance plan.

Respectfully, Supposn

Last edited by Supposn; July 11th, 2017 at 06:22 AM.
Supposn is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #27
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
RNG, stock exchanges and the brokerage firms that trade within them are subject to government regulations; insurance enterprises such as medical insurers are subject to government regulations; the corner candy store is subject to government regulations; but they all are “free enterprises”.
Naive children believe all things and concepts are absolutes with no nuances, but we expect their experiences will better instruct them.

I, and I suppose all other participants in this forum to some extent share your cynicism. But generally, the concept of product's lower costs inducing lower prices has been the experience in all nations regardless of their economic systems. I consider your arguing as otherwise to be foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn
I guess you never heard of toxic assets and too big to fail and all the related stuff. And now with Trump, the few mild regulations introduce to try and somewhat decrease that type of activity are now being removed.

Competition in a free market do lower prices. Many things within the US government's sphere of influence, like health care, pharmaceuticals and utilities are not free markets.
RNG is offline  
Old July 11th, 2017, 07:20 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I guess you never heard of toxic assets and too big to fail and all the related stuff. And now with Trump, the few mild regulations introduce to try and somewhat decrease that type of activity are now being removed.

Competition in a free market do lower prices. Many things within the US government's sphere of influence, like health care, pharmaceuticals and utilities are not free markets.
RNG, your guess is incorrect; but how do you relate the concept of federal single payer insurance covering individual patients’ catastrophic medical costs to “toxic assets and too big to fail”? Your use of the term “and other related stuff” is of no meaning.

Medical services, pharmaceuticals, and utility markets are not less free and competitive due to governments interventions; the need for government intervention is due to those markets not being entirely driven by free, independent competition.

Many cases require government intervention because the economic principles of comparative advantage and the consequences of supply and demand work as predicted.

If government didn’t intervene TVA and other great endeavors would not have been undertaken. If government didn’t intervene, we couldn’t trust the weights and measures of what we purchase; hospital care would still be a death sentence; we would not have gone to the moon or be exploring our galaxy. If government didn’t intervene, the differences of poor and wealthy persons’ life durations and the quality of their lives within those durations would be much greater.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old August 11th, 2017, 08:07 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
I think we should have medicare for all. But I agree with what you say as well. I am opposed to medicaid for all because I think we need some private insurance. If we go with medicaid it will end up as strict socialized medicine and death panels like we recently witnessed in Britain with the infant.
Guy39, I’m a proponent of expanding Medicare to cover all USA’s legal residents.
Commercial insurers did not, do not, and cannot provide basic medical insurance in a manner superior to that of Medicare insurance.

Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers.

Medicare works well, but I object to federal subsidizing nongovernment augmented insurance at greater than federal net basic Medicare costs per capita.
I perceive nothing to be gained by eliminating nongovernment augmented Medicare.

Regardless of whatever medical insurance plans do or will exit in the USA, federal insurance of catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of all individual patients that’s not of cost to any insurance plans would significantly increase the affordability and sustainability of all, (commercial, or non-profits’, or governments’) medical insurance plans.

“On behalf of all patients” does not exclude USA legal residents that otherwise are not covered by any insurance. In the USA when legally obligated or charitable entities do not pay providers of medical goods and services, substantial amounts of those bills are directly or indirectly paid by our governments, (i.e. our taxpayers).

What occurred in Great Britain was not due to their socialized medicine laws and regulations;it was a matter of their other laws.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn is offline  
Old August 11th, 2017, 09:24 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Guy39, I've read that the Catholic Church offered to transport the baby and have it cared for by the Vatican. The hospital couldn't permit it due to Great Britain's laws regarding medical treatment, patients, and parents' rights. Great Britain's socialized medical practices were inconsequential to this case you've referred to.

I do find your references to "death panels" of some interest. I don't recall Medicare or Medicaid grievously intervening with licensed physician's method for treatments, but there have been too many incidences of such interventions by commercial medical insurers.

Tomorrow I must again request that my doctor's office provides me with an additional supply of one of my prescribed medications, because the commercial insurer believes their judgement rather than my licensed physicians judgement should prevail.
To get the Medicare prescription drug coverage, (i.e. Part D of Medicare) passed through congress, Democrats had to acquis to Republican demand that Medicare, (i.e. the government) not be permitted to negotiate drug prices and that non-government insurers, rather than the federal Center for Medicare services should determine which drugs or combinations of drugs they would cover.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thats a little misleading. The insurance companies can refuse to pay for a treatment, but they can not refuse the treatment. That is a very big difference as opposed to a entire system that is under government controlled health care. In that situation the government completely denies the care, as you referenced with the Vatican offers.
guy39 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
catastrophic, costs, individuals, individuals’, medical



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peak Number Of Americans Delaying Medical Care Over Costs antares Political Talk 37 January 23rd, 2015 09:00 AM
WHO warn virus could spread to other countries causing 'catastrophic' loss of life antares Current Events 50 August 5th, 2014 09:31 AM
Should medical insurers’ individual catastrophic accounts be federally re-insured? Supposn Healthcare 3 March 1st, 2013 11:06 AM
Cutting medical expenses; limit medical suits? Supposn Healthcare 1 November 29th, 2009 01:17 PM
Bush to be a Dictator in Catastrophic Emergency... tadpole256 Political Talk 8 June 1st, 2007 08:32 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.