Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
That's a fine and dandy suggestion. I think it has merit. I also think that it would never happen for the simple reason that you'd have to raise taxes to do so and figure out when coverage gets cut off. I think some emergency ambulances provided by governments are free to the patient, and I agree that's the way it should be. But you can't make emergency rooms into public entities. If you get shot (again), you go to the hospital and worry about how to pay for it later. In the current system, charity would take care of a portion of the bill if you are uninsured.
|
Charity is hardly reliable. I see your statement "But you can't make emergency rooms into public entities", but you don't give a reason why.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I don't think I've been clear. The $1M machine 10 years ago has a new version that costs $2M. The rate of inflation should make it about $1.1-$1.2M. The technology costs more today.
|
1.1-1.2M today isn't 1m 10 years ago. Based on the general market, it's more like 700-800k = 1.1-1.2m today. I was obviously just throwing out examples not actually based on real prices. Again, according to a source I cannot cite, unfortunately, my Cardiologist said that the cost is basically the same. I can't back that up, but you can always ask someone if you don't have the information.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Actually, we don't even get close to agreeing on this. Malpractice caps have worked very well at keeping insurance costs down for California doctors, but there's a doctor that I know of in N. CA that delivered a number of babies while high on cocaine. He moved from Illinois specifically because of the caps. Many times the doctor didn't make any mistakes and life happened. Some times the doctor plain old fucked up. Those are the times where the cap is a huge disservice to the claimant.
|
Then the doctor goes to prison. I somehow doubt that's the norm in malpractice cases.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
You missed the next paragraph where I conceeded that this isn't the majority of uninsured. The majority are most certainly those who can't afford the coverage. I just went off on a rant against those that can but choose not to.
|
I respond in order. As I'm typing now, I've not read your last paragraph.
Those who can afford health insurance, have no preexisting conditions and don't get it are dumbfucks. On that we agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
As far as single payer - no. Not at all. Single payer means that someone pays all of their own bills outside the health insurance system. They are the "single payer". My proposal would have the individual apply through the state, be assigned a health insurer who's already writing business in the state and assigned into a plan with the payment burden being shouldered by the state for the most part.
|
So you're talking about something not dissimilar to prisons. Government pays, privately run. That hasn't gone too well.