|
Post by Water Lady on Sept 10, 2009 23:35:12 GMT -4
With all of the debate about Health Care/Insurance Reform lately, I got to wondering what would be the "one" thing you would change if it were up to you, and why...
|
|
|
Post by dej on Sept 10, 2009 23:56:44 GMT -4
Get rid of the pre-existing conditons clause many insurance companies have. It actually can affect employment options as well as causing a big hit in the wallet.
|
|
|
Post by nightpurse99 on Sept 11, 2009 0:05:50 GMT -4
Personal responceabilty. It is my duty to take care of my body and anything that I do to harm it shall be my responceability. I know thats not a change you were looking for but more of a philosphy.
Ok, OK, A real change would be to forbid employers from offering health insurance as a benifit. WHAT! you say, ok stick with me here. If your employer pays you the cost of the insurance package directly to YOU then you can shop around for your own plan " just like car insurance" if your young and healthy ya get a cheap plan but it would also cover extreem accidents ( bunge jumping lets say) if your old and gray then you get one that covers long term care but excludes extream sports. Very doubtful any one person needs to cover BOTH a prostate exame and OB care. ER visits should have a $500.00 copay due at time of service! life or limb excluded in which case no copay is due at all b/c the ER was used properly. Limit malpractice awards. Limit drug company awards Both of those will lessen the cost a MD charges and lessen the cost of medications. Just my .2 in my world.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Sept 11, 2009 0:17:30 GMT -4
Ok, OK, A real change would be to forbid employers from offering health insurance as a benifit. WHAT! you say, ok stick with me here. If your employer pays you the cost of the insurance package directly to YOU then you can shop around for your own plan " just like car insurance" if your young and healthy ya get a cheap plan but it would also cover extreem accidents ( bunge jumping lets say) if your old and gray then you get one that covers long term care but excludes extream sports. Very doubtful any one person needs to cover BOTH a prostate exame and OB care. Good idea if we were allowed to shop regionally or nationally for health insurance. That change would have to be put into place first.
|
|
|
Post by nightpurse99 on Sept 11, 2009 0:37:31 GMT -4
Could you just imagin the GEICO money eyes saving you cash on your next Doc. visit?
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 11, 2009 6:35:49 GMT -4
Get rid of the pre-existing conditons clause many insurance companies have. It actually can affect employment options as well as causing a big hit in the wallet. Ditto!!
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 11, 2009 11:51:28 GMT -4
Personal responceabilty. It is my duty to take care of my body and anything that I do to harm it shall be my responceability. I know thats not a change you were looking for but more of a philosphy. You can take care of your body and still get very, very sick. Just because someone has a health issue doesn't mean he or she didn't take care of her or his body. And even if you do everything right, you're still going to die one day.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 11, 2009 11:52:12 GMT -4
Get rid of the pre-existing conditons clause many insurance companies have. It actually can affect employment options as well as causing a big hit in the wallet. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by shoreterp on Sept 11, 2009 12:25:02 GMT -4
Tort reform, or more specifically cap malpractice awards. These lawsuits drive up the costs for all of us. Now doctors order expensive test after expensive test, not because they feel they are necessary, but because they fear being sued later on. The insurance premiums are so high for doctors now that many of them are getting out of the business or becoming specialists to make more money to cover it. We're gradually getting to the point where no one is going to want to be a general practitioner anymore. Capping malpractice judgments would make a HUGE difference in the whole healthcare system in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 11, 2009 12:57:48 GMT -4
Tort reform, or more specifically cap malpractice awards. These lawsuits drive up the costs for all of us. Now doctors order expensive test after expensive test, not because they feel they are necessary, but because they fear being sued later on. The insurance premiums are so high for doctors now that many of them are getting out of the business or becoming specialists to make more money to cover it. We're gradually getting to the point where no one is going to want to be a general practitioner anymore. Capping malpractice judgments would make a HUGE difference in the whole healthcare system in my opinion. And on the same note, many doctors order tests that really aren't needed, so they can pad the bill. The infamous stress test for one...
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Sept 11, 2009 13:44:42 GMT -4
Tort reform, or more specifically cap malpractice awards. These lawsuits drive up the costs for all of us. Now doctors order expensive test after expensive test, not because they feel they are necessary, but because they fear being sued later on. The insurance premiums are so high for doctors now that many of them are getting out of the business or becoming specialists to make more money to cover it. We're gradually getting to the point where no one is going to want to be a general practitioner anymore. Capping malpractice judgments would make a HUGE difference in the whole healthcare system in my opinion. And on the same note, many doctors order tests that really aren't needed, so they can pad the bill. The infamous stress test for one... Or they are ordering tests to CYA, because if they "miss" something, they may be sued. I also think tort reform is needed. I think doctors need to be held accountable for treatment of patients, but there are just too many frivolous lawsuits "out there". (I know, what is frivolous to me may be "real' to another, but I've been on a jury for a lawsuit that, honestly, should not have been brought against the doctor).
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Sept 11, 2009 14:42:57 GMT -4
My biggest (and only one I can think of right now) gripe with the status quo is going in for a doctor's visit, paying my co-pay, and then weeks later getting a bill because the Doctor asked for X amount from the insurance and they paid him $50 shy of X.
I don't care who gives in or if they meet in the middle, but I expected to only pay $25 for my visit.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Sept 11, 2009 14:46:20 GMT -4
My biggest (and only one I can think of right now) gripe with the status quo is going in for a doctor's visit, paying my co-pay, and then weeks later getting a bill because the Doctor asked for X amount from the insurance and they paid him $50 shy of X. I don't care who gives in or if they meet in the middle, but I expected to only pay $25 for my visit. That's when his billing manager should be on the phone with the insurance company getting them to pay what they should be paying.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Sept 11, 2009 15:36:02 GMT -4
Health insurance is such an unregulated mess. My previous employer of almost 20 years had MDIPA. Each doctors visit and/or prescription cost me $5. By the time I left the company, they were dealing with some no-name insurance trying to save money. The employee paid the first $2500 out of pocket, then 20% of everything after that. That was on top of my monthly premiums of $400. What a crock that was. I was so glad to get out of there.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 11, 2009 18:35:00 GMT -4
I strongly agree with tort reform. There's too much money being made by the lawyers and driving up costs.
I understand the concern over pre-existing conditions but I'm not sure how to fix that. We're talking insurance here, just like car insurance or life insurance. If you took a totaled car to the car insurance company there's no way they would give you a collision policy on it. If you had terminal cancer and tried to buy life insurance there's no way they would write a policy for you. Health insurance is the only insurance where we demand to go to an insurance company and say, "yes, I know it's already broken but I expect you to fix it, not me."
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Sept 11, 2009 18:37:28 GMT -4
I will throw my hat in the "tort reform" circle. Having several years of hard medical experience as well as working for nearly a decade in the insurance industry, I can say with total confidence that this should be the very FIRST item on the reform "to do" list. I have seen both sides of the coin...
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 11, 2009 19:58:23 GMT -4
I strongly agree with tort reform. There's too much money being made by the lawyers and driving up costs. I understand the concern over pre-existing conditions but I'm not sure how to fix that. We're talking insurance here, just like car insurance or life insurance. If you took a totaled car to the car insurance company there's no way they would give you a collision policy on it. If you had terminal cancer and tried to buy life insurance there's no way they would write a policy for you. Health insurance is the only insurance where we demand to go to an insurance company and say, "yes, I know it's already broken but I expect you to fix it, not me." But you CAN get car insurance if you've totaled a car.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 11, 2009 20:25:51 GMT -4
I strongly agree with tort reform. There's too much money being made by the lawyers and driving up costs. I understand the concern over pre-existing conditions but I'm not sure how to fix that. We're talking insurance here, just like car insurance or life insurance. If you took a totaled car to the car insurance company there's no way they would give you a collision policy on it. If you had terminal cancer and tried to buy life insurance there's no way they would write a policy for you. Health insurance is the only insurance where we demand to go to an insurance company and say, "yes, I know it's already broken but I expect you to fix it, not me." But you CAN get car insurance if you've totaled a car. OK, tell me where I can take a totaled car, buy a collision policy, then have the insurance company pay to fix it. There's a business opportunity there. Yes, you can still get liability insurance and you can get collision insurance on ANOTHER vehicle, but I'm willing to be you aren't going to find a company that will accept one month's payment in exchange for doling out several thousand dollars for repairs of an already damaged vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by nightpurse99 on Sept 11, 2009 22:42:32 GMT -4
I strongly agree with tort reform. There's too much money being made by the lawyers and driving up costs. I understand the concern over pre-existing conditions but I'm not sure how to fix that. We're talking insurance here, just like car insurance or life insurance. If you took a totaled car to the car insurance company there's no way they would give you a collision policy on it. If you had terminal cancer and tried to buy life insurance there's no way they would write a policy for you. Health insurance is the only insurance where we demand to go to an insurance company and say, "yes, I know it's already broken but I expect you to fix it, not me." I totaly agree with you and your question is indeed valid " how do you fix it?" Prehaps this , pre-existing condition, is where the govt. policy would step in.
|
|
|
Post by moosie on Sept 12, 2009 3:50:08 GMT -4
well, look at this, then:
you're going along living your life as an insured person, and you develop a condition. then your company changes insurers or you change companies. suddenly, you have a pre-exiting condition. now what?
|
|
|
Post by nightpurse99 on Sept 12, 2009 6:54:12 GMT -4
Moosie, thats the main problem with depending on your job for coverage. If you bought your own coverage just like car insurance it would not matter if your company changed insurers or if you changed jobs. A little history search tells us that it was not untill the 1930's the companys started offering health insureance benifits. This was primarly due to the lack of cash to pay employees with. Companies could purchase insurance at a discounted rate plus they would recieved a nice tax write off as a business expence. They would then offer it to the workers and tell them "if you had to buy this coverage yourself look at the retail price" and counted that as part of your compensation. It just became the norm.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 12, 2009 7:46:10 GMT -4
well, look at this, then: you're going along living your life as an insured person, and you develop a condition. then your company changes insurers or you change companies. suddenly, you have a pre-exiting condition. now what? I believe HIPAA (1996) covers that. I believe the preexisting condition problem occurs for those who are living their life uninsured (for whatever reason).
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Sept 12, 2009 10:25:43 GMT -4
You are correct falgar.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Sept 12, 2009 11:26:50 GMT -4
It happens.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Sept 12, 2009 12:56:18 GMT -4
well, look at this, then: you're going along living your life as an insured person, and you develop a condition. then your company changes insurers or you change companies. suddenly, you have a pre-exiting condition. now what? I believe HIPAA (1996) covers that. I believe the preexisting condition problem occurs for those who are living their life uninsured (for whatever reason). Nope, you're not totally correct here. If you're getting insurance through work, they can't completely discriminate against pre-existing conditions. What they do is raise your company's premiums to encourage your company to fire you: (I was going to post a link here, but I can't seem to find it. Will keep looking. Google, though, does provide some news stories: newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2009/01/fired-because-o.html) And if you don't get insurance through your employer, you can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition even if you've been insured your whole life up to that point. [EDIT: Link: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/751100/-How-I-lost-my-health-insurance-at-the-hairstylists ]
|
|