Healthcare At a Price You Can Afford-Hmm

I don't know the answer but I will say I am receiving better health care with private insurance.

Thanks Apryl.

Julie!!!!!!!!

You are so right.

Edit functioning would be nice.

The first thing that could cut the cost in half is to get rid of where that "half" money is going - a place that doesn't even provide the care - THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

How to do that is another matter. The insurance industry won't allow it to happen. They are too big and powerful AND RICH (off health care money?)

Exactly Peter. And my article only captured a small bit of what is going on. What if you carrier denies a procedure? But it might save your life? You cant afford it? Then what?

Who else wants to rag on that awful industry. They just make money on money - I hate that.

I'm too poor to be affected, haha. I have nothing for them to take (if they try to take my computer memory sticks there might be super big trouble) but it's the middle class that can't afford to have one "oops" and they lose their home. A lot of policies only cover up to 10,000 a year. A heart attack can easily put you over that.

I know people who "lost the farm" (and one literally lost a farm) over heart attacks and cancer that put them over what the insurance company covered.

Universal health care will help keep the middle class there where they are. Now, the poor already get health care, one way or another. The rich not only can afford it but are making money on it. It's the middle class who have everything to lose with a greedy health care system.

Splitting the population into smaller chunks helps to keep costs up. The whole point of insurance is to distribute risk among a population. The larger and more diverese the population, the the better it is for the population as a whole. Get lots of young healthy people in there to offset the older, more expensive people. When the insurance companies cut the people up into smaller portions, it's harder to have that diversity. Then they can refuse to insure people with high risk factors or pre-existing conditions. So they cherry pick the profitable people and leave the people who need insurance out in the cold.

One very real result of this is drug pricing. My wife is currently being treated for cancer. She takes a drug every 2 weeks that costs 3000 dollars per shot (yes...three thousand). And that is the price that has been negotiated by my insurance company. Some policies pay more. I assume some pay less. This all means that the drug company CAN sell it to my insurance company for less than it does to others. It just chooses not to. Sales volume is a factor. If my insurance company promises to buy a certain quantity, they'll give them a deal. If another company has less members and won't buy as much, they won't get the discount.

So if everyone was in a big giant pile, that would be the biggest possible population, therefore the largest sales volume, therefore prices should come down.

Now, with dickheads like we have running the country, we have rules for Medicare part D that say that the government CANNOT negotiate drug prices. Now, tell me who our government is looking out for...the person on Medicare? well, higher costs don't help that person. The taxpayer? Higher costs don't help the taxpayer either. The drug companies? Ahh...yup. Higher prices help them out quite a bit.

Peter you have so many valid points. Not only do the insurance policies have maximum incidental caps but lifetime caps. Some as low as a million dollars. So if you have a heart attack and get a pacemaker along with a little open heart surgery you are pretty much done for.

Joseph I agree completely.

Julie is right. The healthcare lobbyists have all of our politicians in their pockets.

Jim that is crazy. Just shows how much the insurance industry is making...and FYI about UHC they run one of the few HMO's for medicare patients. But mention socialized healthcare to americans and you are the devil.

Socialized healthcare is erroniously credited for raising taxes. Which is true but then you think about how much on a monthly basis you pay for doctors and dentist visits and meds and insurance premiums cut that in half for the average family and that is how much you taxes go up.

So not only does socialized medicine make sense for the average person in terms of healthcare availability but also it makes sense financially.

But the government doesnt care about you or I unless we are the CEO of BCBS or UHC.

Bob yes she is and yes they do.

Lori thinks Julie is very right and very HOT!!!!!

Lori kind of understand Julies comment but Lori goes on to say she thinks Julie is always hot and right and Lori thinks that Lori is confusing Lori:0

I wish they would come out with a plan for all to hear as well. i tired of hearing all these promises that after being elected the promises get pushed under the rug so to speak. Stop lying and tell us point blank.

Sandy amen to that.

Why is it that whenever the issue of healthcare costs comes up everyone wants to place all of the blame on the insurance companies? What about the illegals who get billions of dollars of free care in the ER that we pay for...

Dana that is such a small percentage of the healthcare costs. The fact is that it is the insurance companies...drug companies and doctors and hospitals that have forced it to be this way.

BTW they dont get free healthcare they go to the ER and dont pay the bill. Not the same thing.

And Dana tell the CEO of whatever insurance company YOU work for that your redherring didnt work:)

It is known that a purely Socialized Medicine alternative does not work well.
It is known that HMOs don't work
It is know that the present "insurance" sysdom is not working well

What would be wrong with a system that is patterened after Social Security or Medicare. A system that is independant of the government like Social Security. Medicare does not cover EVERYTHING only 80%. Insurance Companies could then provide medi-gap for the 20% at a reasonable rate. (mine is 140 a mo)

Would that be Socalized Medicine? Probably, but modified. It would keep the central government out of it and would cost less in higher taxes.

I am not sure Dr Paul would agree to this idea but I think I would.

Colonel I have no problem with modified socialized medicine.

Your ideas are better than most of the politicians running for pres.

At the end of WWII, while they were financially devastated, a number of European nations decided that if they could provide healthcare to their citizens during wartime, they could do better in peacetime. The reason? It was a basic human right in a civilized nation.

Is the US so dedicated to individual freedom that it does not recognize human rights seen by other "first-world" countries? Of course, everything comes with a cost -- but what is the cost of this decision?

Bob added a link to both your and my article about insurance. His article can be found here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977198906

My article can be found here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977198324

Insurance companies are out for the money not to help families. It is a sad truth. I hate our insurance company. I am thankful that we have it but it is such a rip off

I dont think healthcare is at the top of any our our elected officials list. I have no idea why, it is one thing that affects every citizen in the US.

We don't have to socialize medicine, but we could go a long way by removing profit from it! It seems unethical to me that we allow profit on health care services. Vital services that all people need. We don't have for profit fire or police departments!

This does not mean that doctors or health care workers would make less money. It does mean that private health care insurance companies would have to be eliminated.

Of course health care is not at the top of any politicians lists of to dos (except during elections) because they have great insurance that you and I pay for!

Jerry, I just read your post. I am in full agreement with you on the insurable pool being national. Such a pool would bring true competition among insurers and most likely lower overall cost. A "negative" however is that it would take away the power of the individual states. As we all know, each state regulates the insurance industry within its borders. Think of the consequences when that power is diminished.

Enough for now.....