Originally Posted by cmk227
Pman10, I think you make a great point. The problem is that although I in theory support and agree with you that excluding people from insurance coverage due to preceding illnesses is bad most people buy or pay for health insurance when they think or know that they have a major illness in the near term future. In that case the insurance company will not be able to absorb the cost since normally they would have a collected sample of health individual and they can predict what percentage will become ill. This law allow ill patients from immediately seeking coverage when they need it and not before which is forcing premium to go up and to adjust for the unexpected.
That's why a mandate is part-and-parcel to an effective healthcare solution. Think about it - if all citizens are required to be insured at all times, it will 1.) eliminate the issue of people only buying insurance at times of illness and 2.) increase the insurance pool, bringing down the average premium.
The other problem is that the mandate to lower cost will caused most private insurance to drop more people or exit the business which in turn will give more people to the gov't health care system and establish socialist medicine.
I'm not sure I agree. As long as you include no cost controls or gov't regulations (aside from the mandate and banning exclusion of sick patients), there is no reason for the insurance industry to drop out entirely. Think of it like the auto industry - all drivers are required to be insured, and yet it's rare to hear about people being unable to insure themselves, right? And yet, the auto insurance industry is almost completely private. The key to this will be having a safety net, so that people below a certain income qualify for some form of government subsidy, in order to pay their premium. This will potentially allow us to phase out medicaid, as well.
Most doctors don't want to take medicare/medicaid patients and the quality and access to healthcare will drop.
This is already a HUGE issue, so I'm glad you brought it up. Finding a primary care physician for someone under medicaid or medicare is an enormous challenge in today's environment. Medicaid and Medicare are a joke - in some cases, they do not even cover the expenses of a physician or hospital, meaning that a physician loses money for each medicaid/medicare patient they see! That's ridiculous, and needs to be corrected.
Here in Texas we have been working with several doctors that will accept only 100 VIP patients that will pay him approx. $5,000 or $500K per year and he will be on call 24 hours a day year round since this will be much better than Obama health care law. The price is not bad when my own insurance premium for my family are around $1,400 per month which total over $16,800 per year.
Why do you think that in socialist countries like Canada, Italy and Britain as an example my clients with financial means travel and pay to come and do their operation in the US since the quality and most important access of care in those countries has come done significantly.
Excellent, excellent point. No matter what approach we take to healthcare reform, this is one aspect of our system that we must NOT lose. Access to healthcare, and in particular to elective and new treatments, is incredible in the United States. Which is why I am strongly against any attempt to socialize or nationalize our healthcare system.
That being said, we need to have comprehensive reform. Our healthcare system, for the large part, is in shambles. We have some of the largest health disparities among modernized nations, we have some of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancies of developed nations, and yet we spend two to three times as much per capita on healthcare as compared to our peers (UK, France, Japan, etc.)
My good client has had heart problems and he is an British citizen he went ask to see his doctor they determine that he needed an urgent operation and one month went by and nothing. So he spend over hundred thousand flew to the US and was seen and operated in less than a week.
Could you imagine if people did not have the financial means he would most likely die before being treated. The said part of the story is that it been almost 5 months from the operation and he just received notice that his request had been approved and to schedule the date for his operation.
This is a good story, but it doesn't really pan out when you look at the statistics. As I stated above, these countries have better life expectancies than ours, although that is largely due to a better diet and lower comorbidities (less prevalence of hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, etc.). These sorts of waits are usually found for elective or experimental procedures.
I would be curious to know how many people from those countries apply for benefit and how many actually receive it. I bet that in cases of cancer and surgery most cancer patients did not receive the treatment in a timely manner which drastically reduce their chances to survive.