Not Health Insurance...Healthcare....

[LeftHander]

America does need "insurance" we simply want healthcare.

We want to be able to see a doctor when we are ill or injured. We don't want insurance that tells when to see a doctor or if we can see one to "possibly" receive treatment.

Until we remove the concept of "insurance" from healthcare we will always have people without any healthcare available to them.

[defendandprotect]

1. Single payer health care --- extend Medicare to everyone ---

just remove the age limitations on Medicare ---

[sybylla]

2. Agreed

The only way around it is if we regulate the hell out of health insurance companies - and we all know how deep the pockets are in the health insurance industry.

[eridani]

3. There is at least one insurance CEO who agrees with us here

http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/559758

We All Need Healthcare; Who Needs "Insurance"?
By Georganne Chapin, JD, MPhil, President and CEO, Hudson Health Plan


I am a health insurance and managed care executive so you may find this editorial a bit strange. I believe that the way to fix our healthcare system is to stop relying on insurance and focus instead on healthcare.

So, what's wrong with health insurance?

Well, first, it's temporary. This may work for auto policies, but not for human health.

Second, health insurance is mostly contingent on where you live and whom you work for. It's easy to transfer car insurance, but not health insurance.

Finally, insurance Human beings -- who need preventive care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security, and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them.

Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the same family could end up with separate policies, with different benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient.

Finally, insurance companies make more money by minimizing pay-outs than by keeping people healthy. Human beings -- who need preventive care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security, and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them.

Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the same family could end up with separate policies, with different benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient.

Other developed nations have universal healthcare, not "insurance." They give healthcare to everybody, they spend less, and they are healthier for it.

But, we have an example of success in this country, too. It's called Medicare. And while flawed, Medicare meets the most important criteria for a universal healthcare system: it's permanent, it's portable, and it's simple and inexpensive to administer.

The health insurance model is flawed because it depends on people falling between the cracks after they pay their premiums and before they collect their "benefits." Rather than insurance, providing health care to everyone would cost less and deliver more in the long run.

[RB TexLa]

4. A single payer system is still going to determine what it is and isn't going to pay for

just like private insurance does. The system will tell you it is not going to pay for a specialist if they don't think it is warranted. The system will tell you it's not going to pay for a surgery it feels isn't necessary.

Of course there will be doctors and facilities that are better at getting things covered, just like now. And there will be doctors and facilities that out and out steal from a single payer system just like they steal from private and public insurance now.

[LeftCoast]

5. Thank you!

I've been saying this for some time now. I get the impression that a large number of people assume that single-payer is a panacea. It's not. Ultimately, what is important is not whether it's single-payer or insurance based, but that healthcare is affordable and available for everyone. That can be done with either system.

[BigDaddy44]

8. Good point

The other thing that will need to be addressed is the immediate inbalance that will be created in supply and demand. If everyone immediately has access to health care whenever they are injured or ill, the demand will go up considerably, but the supply will not (the number of doctors won't appreciably change). Imbalances like this are usually handled by changing prices (price goes up, demand goes down), but that wouldn't have an impact as the consumer isn't directly paying. Therefore, when demand outpaces supply, there are shortages (i.e. longer waits).

This is a common problem among countries with universal health care. Thats one of the reasons why this is such a complicated topic.

[Hawkowl]

6. Bravo!

We need to correct everyone we talk to or engage on this issue. Whenever anyone mentions Universal health insurance ask them if they mean universal access to health care. Insurance companies are the middlemen. Actually they are more like a mafia protection racket extorting money with no intention of EVER paying anything out.

[OneBlueSky]

7. what we need is NON-CORPORATE Universal Healthcare . . .

the problem with the current system -- and with ALL proposals by current presidential candidates -- is that is maintains corporate control of the healthcare system . . . and that means that a) medical decisions are made by non-medical people, and b) a huge percentage of the healthcare dollar is diverted to corporate profits . . .

when talking about healthcare, we'd be smart to always include "non-corporate" in the discussion . . .

[Thothmes]

13. You must remember thought

Insurance companies are not the only corporations involved in health care. Almost all hospitals, clinics, labs, and private practices are in fact incorporated. The only way to get corporations or incorporations completely out of health care would be for the Government to assume 100% ownership of all medical facilities, and put the health care personnel on the Federal payroll.

[blondie58]

9. take the profit out of healthcare

there really should be no CEO making millions for a bonus. I say that as I struggle to pay my expensive co-pays for my last injury of a torn rotary cuff. Seriously, I can't afford this $80 a week co-pay to see physical therapist and I still haven't paid my bills for the $200 MRI and $150 surgery fee. I am a federal employee, so I have decent insurance, although what I have to pay every year goes up.

Why can't we just ask Canada to help us with the transition?

[RC]

10. Case in point... ‘ On a wing and a prayer’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2965957&mesg_id=2965957

[Vinca]

11. The thing that makes health insurance different from car insurance

is the unknown and the unknown is what allows the insurance companies to put any hope of seeing a doctor out of the reach of many people. If you total the car, you know it's maybe $10 or $20,000. If you have a heart attack it might be $20,000 a day . . . but you probably will never have a heart attack. I want the money grubbing insurance companies out of the solution, but that will probably never happen. I propose letting them sell CHEAP policies to cover a $10,000 deductible and a government health system to pick up the rest. Most people never get over $10,000 in a year so it would make the whole thing more palatable to the opposition.

[a kennedy]

12. Exactly......please read my sig line.

Health CARE for all!!! :patriot:

[HeeBGBz]

14. Insurance can't help me now

I have "a preexisting condition" and they would just shrug and tell me I'm fucked.