Karl Denninger wrote..

...It is my opinion that we should be treating those in the health-insurance lobby, including hospitals, physicians and health-insurance providers, as co-conspirators in a racketeering scheme that effectively trades on the fear of disease and imminent bankruptcy to bamboozle and screw the population, while waving around their "hippocratic oath" - something better described as the "hypocritic oath."...

I vote for the Denninger Plan.

Since no-fault auto insurance systems can get rid of costly litigation and put more money in the hands of the injured, perhaps torts should be disallowed entirely, and some kind of no-fault system used instead. A small fee could be added to procedures, and victims paid out of this money pool.

Neo, "no fault" doesn't stop you from suing for GROSS negligence.

This plan IS, effectively, "no fault."

Wineaux - You're the one who brought politics into this. I never claimed to be a republican.

Little story though - my neighbor down the street is from Canada. Her dad goes into the Hospital complaining of chest pains. They run an EKG. 7 days later, the doctor reads the EKG and calls the home to say it looks like he needs to come back in. The wife responds "we buried him yesterday".

These stories are common place in the Canadian health system. People from Canada come down to the US to pay cash for procedures because they either can't get them in Canada or they think they will be dead by the time their number gets called. Do you not know anyone who lives in Canada? Serious question.

And dude, if your claiming people in San Paulo or Rio have the same access to care we do you need to put down the crack pipe. Sure - the 1% behind the razor tipped walls do but they pay cash. The other 99% don't.

86 - I am in disagreement with the claim that access will be limited. Under our current system, if both you and I walk into a hospital tomorrow (you have insurance I do NOT have insurance), drop to floor and suffer a heart attack, what do you think happens? We will both be treated and given bypass surgery.

For you (the insured): YOU will have to pay your out of deductables, your insurance company will hack 50% off of the remaining medical invoice, and the hospital will write off the difference.

For me (the uninsured): I get released and pay nothing. The hospital writes off the entire invoice and is forced to increase the price of bypass surgery for everyone in order to stay in business. Health insurance companies turn around and increase YOUR rates.

Quote:

Do you not know anyone who lives in Canada? Serious question.

I lived in Toronto for a year in a half. Had a nice little apartment off of the DVP. Also lived in Brasil, Argentina, Germany.

Ever been to any of these places? I think not!! You proably are regurgitating what you hear and read and have no first hand experience.

That's what is has to be right Win? Blind partisanship? Because anything else would require you to dig deeper, ask questions, and maybe wonder if this is all a good idea.

It's easy to dismiss protestors as thugs, critics as partisans, heck call them racists....anything but debate the facts.

People like you make me sick.

Oh and no need to respond. You just became the second TF user to ever make my ignore list.

I like plans that don't cost money....
Laws can be amended or repealed at a later point if it is apparent they are ineffective. Money spent (borrowed) cannot be unspent and spent differently if the first plan doesn't work.

If the US was actually a wealthy nation, we could argue over the morality of government helping people out, but the real issue is the morality of bankrupting our nation for any reason...

Bankruptcy? Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We don't need to worry about petty details. We need to worry about the big issues, like how I can live forever with minimal personal responsibility.

I would like to see a modification of the Health Savings Account combined with high deductable insurance.

My current insurance has an (annual) $4000 deductable for doctor's visits and labs and a $10000 deductable for operations and hospital stuff. Annual preventive exams are not subject to the deductable (for stuff like mamograms). I used to be able to put, pre-tax, about $5000 a year into a HSA, which can be used to cover the deductables and meds. (Now, it's after tax, which isn't as favorable.)

Now those are high deductables, but I'd rather put the money in a HSA, which if not used up can be tapped in retirement, than dish it out in premiums. I've learned that doctors, if you pay with a debit (HSA) card on the spot are pretty willing to negotiate a discount for pricey services ("voluntary" surgeries like retinal re-attachment, for example).

A modified version of this, with say, a $2000/$5000 deductable and marginally higher premiums as an offset, to me, would be about ideal.

I pay premiums for 2 adults ... and I pay about 25% in premiums of what my assistant (2 adults, 2 kids) pays using the HMO plan.

Even having to burn up the HSA on surgeries this year (much of which, by the way was on my dental copays, not even on the retinal stuff), I figure I about broke even versus kicking out the premiums to insurance company, and I got the services for cheaper than my insurance's negotiated rates.

86 – I can safely assume that although we are in disagreement with the “accessibility” portion of healthcare debate, there are many other topics for which we share similar feelings. This is why we are part of TF.

Nevertheless, you gotta do what you gotta do. I wish you luck!

Kill Medi-caid but don't **** with my Medi-care