ASU2003

[QUOTE=willravel]1) Is there a problem, and if yes what is the problem?
I'll play the other side... I currently do not have any problems with my past health care coverage and benefits I have received. It does cost money, but I shouldn't have to support everyone else.

If you answered yes:
2) Is it likely to work itself out?

If you answered no:
3) What is the best way to fix it?
I support free emergency care for real accidents and free vaccinations to prevent diseases. This is for everyone and would be covered by a state by state sales tax (it wouldn't be that much). Doctors could come up with a list of treatments and procedures that they currently do and would fall in this category, and this would be the tier 1 group.

I support grouping people based on gender, age(0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60+), # of dependants, smoking level, and body-mass index (a better number needs to be developed) to determine how much of a monthly premium (private or non-profit company) (or gov. tax) they have to pay (their employers should also have to pay a set percentage or all, this isn't optional, it's required for the employee, spouces and children are optional). These would be routine procedures or once in a while stuff. Not everyone will be able to have this, but it should be affordable and available to everyone regardless of previous or current illness. This is the tier two group and would include stuff like visits to the doctor (with no co-pay) because you have a fever, the baby won't keep anything down, having a baby, STD treatment, surgery, other required procedures.

Medicine and bc pills are a different story, they should be available to all that require them, but knowing if Viagra is a recreational drug or a required drug is difficult.

The system needs to encourage people to be healthy and not need to use healthcare (Because they don't need to, not because they are trying to save money or use it because they have paid for it). Maybe even collect too much money and give refunds to people who didn't get sick or hurt that year. There should also be fitness tests done to qualify for discounts.

Mental healthcare is a tough one. It is better to treat people, but I'm afraid that they would flood the system if it was free.

The system needs to support the development of new drugs and treatments. And make sure Doctors are compensated for the quality of treatment, not just the number of patients seen.

The billing system and medical record system needs to be updated to the 21st century and made more efficient.

I think that there should be a large non-profit insurance company (possibly setup by the government) that would handle collecting and distributing money. And instead of profits going to a few big shareholders (your 100 UNH shares mean nothing), the American people would become the shareholders, so any 'profits' would go to improving health care services. And the monthly premiums would go down the next month.

The other tier is the private insurance realm. This would still be run by the private companies. They will provide a high quality of care for the people who can afford it. Or you could get it just to cover anything that the no frills tier 1 & 2 coverage doesn't catch. Maybe it would be more tests or cat scans or better speed of service. If you want to pay to get faster care or what you view as better care, I'm all for it. UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS on package delivery and sometimes they do a better job. Or at least push the USPS to improve.

And they need to limit the number of times a drug can be advertised on TV. Doctors should be telling the patient what drug will help them, not the other way around.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work or how to set it up, but we can do better, or we can do a lot worse.

4) Why (explain your answer)?
Because we shouldn't have to worry about getting financially wiped out by one illness or accident. But at the same time, we shouldn't be getting gouged each month by insurance companies looking to make increasing amounts of profits so their stock price will go up.

I also don't like the universal healthcare approach, because it means that I have to use it since I'm paying for it. I'm afraid that there would be abuse of the system. And the costs would keep going up.

If you break people down into categories, I'm not supporting the couple that decided to have 5 babies because it costs them the same amount as not having any. I don't have any kids; I should be grouped together with other childless people between 20-40.

I included the smoking and body-mass index number, or something better because it reflects how the bdy is being treated.

5) Who is in a position to enact this change?
The government would have to propose it and sell it to the people. They would have to deal with a big backlash from Wall St. and the big insurance companies.

6) What can I do to make this change?
Post about it on an internet forum.