I accept the usual free market arguments against socialzed medicine, but I think we should recognize that we already have a form of socialized medicine. Many hospital bills go unpaid, and paying customers are expected to make up for that. That's one reason hospital bills are so high. This amounts to a tax on the sick.

One possible solution is to have the government purchase a hospitals receivables, maybe for 50 cents on the dollar, and resell them at auction, for whatever they can get. This might result in higher taxes, but lower health insurance premiums, and fewer bankrupcies, while allowing people to continue doing business with the insurance companies and health care providers of their choice.

I don't mean to suggest that this will entirely solve the problem, or that additional reforms won't be needed, but I do think it would help.

Though this would help indviduals, it does not address the problem of excessive medical expenses, at the national level.

We don't have a problem with skyrocketing auto repair expenses, because if the cost of repairing car is too great, the repair simply isn't done. Due to advancing medical technology, much of which is very expensive, there is simply no limit to the potential cost of treating human beings. Under any system, there is a point, at which we have to say, you're not going to receive this treatment, because it's too expensive.

I see no reason to limit the treatment that is available to those wo can pay for it, but I don't accept the notion that what is available to some should necessarily be available to all. Rich people might have better health care, just as they have better houses, and better cars. There are certain advantages to having money, and I see nothing inherenly wrong with that, but there are ways of improving the health care that is available to the poor, without necessarily going to a completely socialized system.

We can also get more bang for the buck, by focusing on prevention. Excuse me for a moment, while I take another drag on my cigarette.

Infectious diseases are another problem. If you break your leg, that's your problem. If you have an infectious disease, that is the communty's problem. I think the virus ought to be viewed, much as we would view an invading army, and not left strictly to private health care providers.

I have no complaint with the idea that medical costs are going through the roof. The trouble is that insurance companies also realise this. You have things like "managed health care" now. In otherwords if it is expensive let us see if we can get out of paying it in some way.

For the rich it is not a problem. The question is, "What percentage of the population is truely rich?" It is the rest that either do without or have to come up with some other way. For most that is insurance. Insurance that is for the most part, trying to figure a way to get out of paying. So you wind up paying for something that is trying to gyp you. What is wrong with this picture?

I do not have the answers. Only many, many questions. I am not sure that socialized medicene is the answer because it seems to pay for that requires that a government slowly go bankrupt. Nor is only having the rich to have the very best.

My comments limited to U.S. medical care, I think the present situation is pretty good. The HMOs keep the hospitals from wildly overcharging. My mom recently had stomach surgery. It was heartening to get bills for $350 per hour doc consults that were whittled down to $75 per hour by the insurance company, an arrangement the doc freely agreed to by contract.

I think people should be required to have health insurance, just as they are required to have auto insurance to get a driver’s license. This requirement could be attached to an increase in the minimum wage to offset the cost, which would boost up all salaries. This would spread the effective tax on the insured sick to the public as a whole.

My state (Washington) has a good approach to health care. The attorney general told the health insurance companies, either provide reasonable-cost individual insurance (not attached to an employer or other group) or your business license will be revoked. Previously individual insurance could cost $500 a month. Now it costs $60 a month for a healthy adult. The state could do this because it knew the insurance companies were falsely claiming that administrating individuals is far more expensive than for groups.

Infectious diseases are not left strictly to private health care providers. The Centers for Disease Control is responsible for that.

>> I think people should be required to have health insurance,
>> just as they are required to have auto insurance to get a
>> driver’s license.

"I would like to get a quote for liability health insurance."

I guess that covers the medical expenses of the insurance agent that you beat the crap out of. /g/

>why
>are
>you
>doing
>that?:bugeye: :confused:




and, to get back to the point..
think people should be required to have health insurance,

what if they can't afford it??

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange



what if they can't afford it??


here the government pays for it if the people can't afford it. Weird isn't it

It is better if the government pays the medical insurance, and the car insurance for drivers. Anything like this that everyone must do should be handled at a national level and not left up to individuals. Just like employees have their wages garnished for taxes rather than expecting them to save the money so they can cough up a big check at the end of the year.

a major cost that should not be ignored is that doctors are paying higher insurance premiums, they then have to pass this onto patients. HOWEVER, do not believe the opinion of the doctors and insurance companies, for it is NOT lawsuits that are driving up insurance premiums.


Insurance companies work by taking their collected fees, and then buying BONDS which pay interest back to the insurance company. Problem is, right now the bonds market is really REALLY low, so all of these insurance companies aren't making as much money. Thus, they raise their rates. That in itself is fine, but now their using doctors as a tool and blaming lawsuits for the increased premiums!

I didn’t know that; that’s good info. In my state (Washington) the radio ads have fired up saying that docs are moving out of state due to too-high insurance premiums. To stay here, they demand tort reform (limits on malpractice lawsuit awards). I think the argument rings hollow, because they could just charge more and renegotiate their fees with the HMOs. Also I see lots of docs in my state not planning on moving. Whenever scare tactics are used, it’s a safe bet there’s an ulterior motive. I agree that the insurance companies are the direct petitioners here, using the docs.

Tort reform is a bad idea I think; for any seemingly reasonable limit, there’s always going to be some horrific negligence you’ll want to award more for. And tort reform will lead to more negligence. A better solution would be to fix the jury problem where two juries will award vastly different amounts for negligibly different cases. Larger juries, or getting the public involved in selecting the amount, might fix that.

no, actually, that's not weird. that is the WAY it SHOULD be. and, i wish the USA would get with it!