Not me. I pay massive cash and my employer pays even more than that, and the company in question is one of the five biggest in the US, and yet when I want to get my annual checkup, the doctor basically takes my blood pressure, listens to my chest, pokes me in the liver and then sends me to a lab, where I have to wait an hour or more and pay another copayment and then wait a couple more weeks to hear the results. Never mind that my doctor has his own lab onsite. This is the same company that wouldn't pay for my wife to have a mammogram citing pre-existing condition. What pre-existing condition, I hear you cry, could possibly be a criterion for deying a TEST to see if you MIGHT have breast cancer or some other problem? Having breasts is a pre-existing condition? And now I find out all this hassle and all this denial of service is so they can save money to lobby Congress and run advertisements on teevee to convince me that everything is fine the way it is. Yeah, fuck no it's not. My daughter *does* have a pre-existing condition so she'll never have real medical coverage in her life, unless there's some kind of plan coming from Congress. And part of the money I pay to my insurer goes to lobby Congress to ensure there will never be a change. Again, y'know what, fuck them and their goddamn advertising and their goddamn lobbying; their job is to, within reason, ensure I get to see a doctor and that I don't die from something stupid. It is NOT their job to make obscene profits and shovel cash into the pockets of shareholders who couldn't possibly give a fuck about some little girl who won't ever have health insurance. So fuck them all to Hell.
For starters, insurance companies couldn't charge more for preconditions and/or outright deny insurance.
Plus one of the things government should do is care for the welfare of those who need it most. A sick person being denied insurance and thus the ability to live seems like someone in pretty dire need.
"insurance companies couldn't charge more for preconditions and/or outright deny insurance" - what do you think will be immediate consequence of that? Right away?
How do you envision a national-wide health care system based on private non-profit organizations? I can't imagine that. For me it looks like there are only two variants: either profitable private business, or government tax-funded program. If the regulation takes away private insurer's profits, insurer will find better use for his money.
In reality, though, they will not sacrifice their profits, at least initially. They will raise premiums. Government will probably want to cap premiums in order to protect public, insurers will come up with some other way to transfer expenses to customers, and so on. Very entertaining process, especially from a vantage point of a guy who pays for it.
An example of non-profits working in real life: Credit Unions. Make insurance companies non-profits that compete with each other, just like credit unions do with each other (and for-profit banks).
It boggles the mind how they can get together supposedly in the "spirit of compromise" and come up not with something that everyone sorta likes, but something everyone hates. How the fuck do they manage that?
Nature of the matter in question. They can't even discuss this stuff openly. Anybody who describes the real goals, content and consequences of the reform will become politically dead in no time. They can't talk to people frankly about the rationing, about saving resources on end-of-life care, about prioritizing, about all the additional taxes, direct and indirect. Hence all the fight under the rug, compromises, and petty populist moves - with totally expected results.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
dwer.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2009-10-14 02:35 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
EVERYTHING IS FINE JUST THE WAY IT IS
THE MAGICAL INVISIBLE HAND OF THE FREE MARKET WILL CURE YOUR DAUGHTER'S AILMENTS
no subject
no subject
no subject
Plus one of the things government should do is care for the welfare of those who need it most. A sick person being denied insurance and thus the ability to live seems like someone in pretty dire need.
no subject
Outrageous! Government is clearly supposed to be made up of people who, in response to entreaties for help, reply "BOOTSTRAPS!"
And then bomb you, if you're brown.
no subject
no subject
Less profit for them. Which I'm okay with because I don't think health insurance should be a for-profit business.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
In reality, though, they will not sacrifice their profits, at least initially. They will raise premiums. Government will probably want to cap premiums in order to protect public, insurers will come up with some other way to transfer expenses to customers, and so on. Very entertaining process, especially from a vantage point of a guy who pays for it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject