mikelst wrote:Interesting idea but... I know several of the uninsured who are in favor of nationalized healthcare. They are also uninsured by choice having selected to not take coverage through work so they could spend that money on newer/better cars or bigger homes because they are young and healthy.
So far that is working for them. They have more ready cash and can be counted as the uninsured, thereby making the problem appear bigger than it is through their own choice. I know this is not the case in all of the uninsured but I am left wondering how much of the numbers are by choices made rather than opportunities lost.
FWIW the original premise of 'insurance' was to spread the large cost of a 'problem'(sickness, fire . . .) across a large base so those who do experience those unfortunate events are minimally impacted financially. That is the reason for the term 'mutual' associated with earlier insurance firms. Along with that 'benefit' came a responsibility to cover all incidences as appropriate. Other than administrative costs, they were a 'non-profit' operation. In order to be able to cover future needs, a considerable 'slush fund' needed to be maintained. That introduced the 'we cannot just let it lie there and become less due to 'inflation' so we will 'invest' it(gamble) philosophy. What followed was the realization that profits could be made if gambling was done correctly. Now they are no longer 'non-profit' and must become 'de-mutualized'. Next it became apparent that more 'winnings' will occur if we solicit $$ from other folks and now we have 'mutual investment schemes'.
So we are now far removed from the initial premise of 'insurance' and have now become a gross profit generating entity(pun intended). Sadly the 'we' are considered by some to be 'too big to
let fail'. Add to that the gross compensation(same pun) to the ones guiding the 'correct' 'investments'.
And we be considering letting Washington add to the mix(healthcare wise)?
IMHO lets go back to direct Patient/Provider interaction re payment and let the insurance go back to reimbursing the patient. If the patient has not paid the provider, no 'reimbursement' should occur. That places the responsibility back where it belongs(patient pays provider, and provider pursues payment) and provider needs to justify fees to the patient. All care decisions are removed from third parties.
If providers can claim that their
regular fees are justifiable and accept medicare payment for a fraction of that amount, I have to question the justification for the 'regular' amount.
I realize this is simplistic, but reverting to something closer to from where we came must occur. We cannot extend the ludicrous path we have been on.
