Here is an idea:
A hospital cannot refuse service to anyone based on if they have insurance or not. They do, however, send the bill directly to the customer in EVERY circumstance. Basically, the hospital never knows if the customer has insurance or not.
It is still up to the consumer if they have insurance, but if they do, the bill still comes to the consumer, and THEY must deal with their insurance company. (encourages the consumer to seek out reliable coverage) IF the consumer doesn't have insurance, they are allowed to work out a payment plan with the hospital that includes interest, but no more interest than competitive mortgages.
If this is STILL too much for the consumer, there is already a system in place for this: And that is bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, the consumers house and car is not taken, so it isn't like they lost everything. They basically are left with their health, and the ability to start over. This wouldn't be the large majority of cases though, since the majority DO have insurance, or could work on the payment plan.
If too many people opted for the bankrupcy deal, it would encourage hospitals to lower prices based on simple supply and demand: They aren't getting their money if they charge too much.
See any holes in it? Unfortunately... no one from Washington ever asked me what I thought. : )
Originally posted by truejedi
[B]Here is an idea:A hospital cannot refuse service to anyone based on if they have insurance or not. They do, however, send the bill directly to the customer in EVERY circumstance. Basically, the hospital never knows if the customer has insurance or not.
It is still up to the consumer if they have insurance, but if they do, the bill still comes to the consumer, and THEY must deal with their insurance company. (encourages the consumer to seek out reliable coverage) IF the consumer doesn't have insurance, they are allowed to work out a payment plan with the hospital that includes interest, but no more interest than competitive mortgages.
If this is STILL too much for the consumer, there is already a system in place for this: And that is bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, the consumers house and car is not taken, so it isn't like they lost everything. They basically are left with their health, and the ability to start over. This wouldn't be the large majority of cases though, since the majority DO have insurance, or could work on the payment plan.
If too many people opted for the bankrupcy deal, it would encourage hospitals to lower prices based on simple supply and demand: They aren't getting their money if they charge too much.
A hospital cannot refuse service to anyone based on if they have insurance or not. They do, however, send the bill directly to the customer in EVERY circumstance. Basically, the hospital never knows if the customer has insurance or not.
It is still up to the consumer if they have insurance, but if they do, the bill still comes to the consumer, and THEY must deal with their insurance company. (encourages the consumer to seek out reliable coverage) IF the consumer doesn't have insurance, they are allowed to work out a payment plan with the hospital that includes interest, but no more interest than competitive mortgages.
This dooms the insurance companies to heck. There is a trend called "adverse selection" that will lead to any group of policyholders being comprised solely of high risk individuals. Everyone else will simply treat health care as a source of credit determined by risk- those in high risk situations will be selected more often than less-risky individuals (which leads to an effect similar to the adverse selection effect).
If this is STILL too much for the consumer, there is already a system in place for this: And that is bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, the consumers house and car is not taken, so it isn't like they lost everything. They basically are left with their health, and the ability to start over. This wouldn't be the large majority of cases though, since the majority DO have insurance, or could work on the payment plan.
[/quote]
If too many people opted for the bankrupcy deal, it would encourage hospitals to lower prices based on simple supply and demand: They aren't getting their money if they charge too much.[/quote]
"Simple supply and demand" is most likely not the best model of the healthcare market. The product (Healthcare) is differentiated (in that care from the Mayo clinic is seen as significantly different from that obtained somewhere else) and the providers are neither price-takers nor monopolists. (This market is an oligopoly.) Oversimplifying the situation is likely to lead to wrong conclusions.
Note: This isn't to say that you're wrong, just that you should look closer before blindly consigning this to laissez faire capitalism. Also:
A hospital cannot refuse service to anyone based on if they have insurance or not.
Not really. It's just illegal to let someone die when it's in your power to help him. It is pretty much murder any way.
So yes, really.
http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/
The Republican Double Standard: Shoe Bomber/Underwear Bomber EditionConservatives want us to believe that Bush deserves credit because "he kept us safe"...after, y'know, that one thing. (And note that it is fairly rare for liberals to argue that Bush deserves much blame for 9/11.) As I've long maintained, things would be very different had a Democrat been president on 9/11. It is very unlikely that a president Gore would have received the unqualified support of Republicans after such an attack. In fact, I have little doubt that he would have likely been the target of a concerted impeachment effort. Republicans certainly would not have praised him because there were no major, successful attacks after 9/11. And had Democrats been so bold as to suggest that he should receive credit for keeping us safe after that, they would have been laughed out of D.C.
Of course Republicans have always denied that they apply such a double standard--but we've got an extremely clear test case now. The case of Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, and Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the underwear bomber. The attempted bombings were extremely similar, as were the responses of the Bush and Obama administrations. There was no Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's response; there has been significant Republican criticism of the Obama administration's response. (Here's Politico on the similarities in the cases and the differences in GOP and Democratic responses. (Wow--bad enough that Politico noticed!))
Of course it's always possible to nitpick insignificant differences, but history rarely provides us with such a clean experiment as this. Here we have significant confirmation of what has long been clear: that, though Republicans demand that we rally 'round Republican presidents after such incidents, they employ them as opportunities for political criticism. Were Democrats to act like Republicans, Republicans would call them unpatriotic...or traitorous.
This is just one aspect of the pervasive Republican double standard, and that double standard is just one aspect of the pervasive irrationality of the contemporary Republican party.
You know I used to be a harccore Republican fan. I listened to the likes of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter and thought they knew their shit.
Now I suppose I'm fairly liberal. Although I still support things like the death penalty, rendition, torture and security measures like the PATRIOT Act.
The torture and rendition deal is an issue I have with Obama. So what if the CIA abuses and kidnaps people? Its what they do, and really who gives a shit? Naive notions of moral high ground need to be deposed of. Its not about being "right" its about winning.
Originally posted by Red NemesisI don't think you understand. There are committees that assign organs. I'm talking about if you get in a car wreck and they don't do everything in their power to help you, etc.
But it is no longer excludable (because the provider cannot restrict consumers to paying consumers) but remains rival (a person getting a heart bypass means no one else can get one at that time on that operating table).So yes, really.
Originally posted by Autokrat
You know I used to be a harccore Republican fan. I listened to the likes of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter and thought they knew their shit.Now I suppose I'm fairly liberal. Although I still support things like the death penalty, rendition, torture and security measures like the PATRIOT Act.
The torture and rendition deal is an issue I have with Obama. So what if the CIA abuses and kidnaps people? Its what they do, and really who gives a shit? Naive notions of moral high ground need to be deposed of. Its not about being "right" its about winning.
You know RH, for every one of those, I can find you 5 for Democrats and Conservatives. I'm a Republican but an even bigger conservative. I think Coulter and Savage are nutcases, along with O'Reilly and Limbaugh. I listen to Dennis Prager because he is logical, well tempered, and objective. I acknowledge the fact that Bush ****ed up big time for 8 years. At the same time, you can blame the senate and the house just as much. I also acknowledge that Obama is taking what Bush did, and making it seem like child's play with his retarded economic policies. I think the man knows less than nothing on the matter, and I think Bernanke is as incompetent as Greenspan. However, I do give credit to Obama for realizing that his promise of change was unrealistic, and instead the only thing he could do was adapt. Liberals and Obama supporters are appalled that most of Obama's "promises" were not only unfulfilled, but were contradicted. I don't think I've ever heard of such naive people as the Obama voters turned out to be. Government run healthcare? Getting out of the middle east? Some people just don't live in a realistic world.
I'm very surprised by you Veneficus. I thought you were all liberal all the way, but you seem to be a liberal I can respect, for that exact post. I never understood the concept of a "moral high ground" because it doesn't relate to today's society. You're absolutely correct, it's about winning. I want Gitmo to remain open. I want capital murderers to continue getting the death penalty.
I support the Patriot act because I understand something like that is necessary in the continued war on terror. I want my fellow Americans and allies of Americans protected at ALL costs.
I don't think you understand. There are committees that assign organs. I'm talking about if you get in a car wreck and they don't do everything in their power to help you, etc.