Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
will, I'm not talking about anything like prisons in the slightest. Let me elaborate my point and perhaps make it clearer:
An individual, for whatever reason, finds himself without insurance. He applies to the state fund. The state takes the next insurance carrier in the queue (as a part of the benefit of writing health insurance for anyone in the state all carriers join the pool) and assigns that carrier to the individual who then underwrites the individual and assigns them a premium. The state then pays a significant portion of that premium with the individual paying the rest. The individual thereby has healthcare coverage.
|
I understand. Uninsured is covered mostly by state, but is treated by private hospital. The state pays for public care to be run privately. Like a prison. That was my comparison. It wasn't intended to be very direct, so far as comparisons go. I'll speak to why I mention it in a second.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
There are some big pitfalls that even someone like myself who only knows enough to be dangerous about health insurance can see. Namely, is the individual treated as such or is there a greater plan in place that is accessible? Is there a deductible or retention in place for the state? How do you pay for it? Is there a cap on the coverage? There are others beyond this, but these 3 seem good enough to start. The carrier has to administer everything, make the payments and negotiate the terms with the providers. The state takes the financial burden. The individual has the coverage and, at least theoretically, contributes.
|
Danger is my middle name. The deductible might have to be voluntary or to be put on an extended payment plan, considering the financial problems that an uninsured person may have. I'd even be worried about the payment plan, as they could easily put people into debt. I don't think we need more credit in medicine. Cap on coverage? I don't see why. The idea here is to treat people who need help, despite the fact that they can't afford coverage. My only concern would be proving you are unable to get insurance (to avoid people simply not having insurance because you can get it for free). All of this involves a lot more bureaucracy in addition to that which we already have in medicine, and I'm not sure how much I like that. It will only add on more costs to the whole thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I don't know where your prison analogy came from, will. Honestly, that question disturbs me because I thought up to now that I'd done a decent job describing what I had in mind, but apparently I wasn't even close.
|
Look at the private prison system. They are privately run, but they get funding from the state. This is similar, though not the same, as what you're talking about. I guess my first thought ran to "how will the hospitals try to make a profit off this..." and then I figured they are treating people who aren't able to sue or anything like that. This could lead to cutting corners in order to squeeze profits out of the government funding. This is similar to the prison system in that the prisons cut corners all the time to make a bigger profit. It's a concern.