Improved efficiency lowers cost. Doesn’t seem like consumers are seeing those savings. Where is the money going?
Agreed, I don’t think that silly leg lengthening surgery should be covered. But…shouldn’t we expect them to cover procedures deemed medically necessary by treating physicians?
Doctors and patients should make these choices, not insurance companies.
Profits
Bottom line
2020 now never mind hindsight
Neither do the universal health care systems of other Western countries. You’re throwing up straw men. Plus a heavy dose of niavity. (how on Earth do you spell that word?). Insurance companies do have a place in fending off fraud but I think it’s pretty easy to show they’ve gone well beyond that and into placing their own profits far and beyond their patient’s health.
One has to wonder who do we in the USA have a healthcare system that has similar outcomes to Western Europe but at twice their cost? Plus the added “bonus” of being able to bankrupt citizens?
Encouraging the insured to use generic drugs when they are effective is good policy. Negotiating favorable pricing with in network providers is good business too. Should be ok as long as capable providers participate.
Following insurance preferences gives cost saving for equivalent care in most cases. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, there are excesses.
Hillary care taught us that most of us are satisfied with our health insurance. Especially the ability to choose our own doctor.
The statements are often at odds with each other.
Huh? When my employer went out of business, the next place I worked had different insurance, so I had to find a different “in network” doc. Then I retired, bought insurance from a different company, and had to change doc again.
Then I went on “Commie, big gummit, one size fits all” Medicare, and have the same doc I had before, because there is no “network”
Steve
No but in our area some I will repeat SOME doctors now are cash only.
MA does not add up. The belief it does will come to haunt some people.
It adds up for the insurance companies. Both Parts C and D were specifically written to, first, shovel money to the insurance industry. I would suspect that any public questioning of the program’s efficiency is nothing but fishing for “protected free speech”, to turn away and let the programs be.
Steve
You are already know I do not care about insurance companies.
It does not add up for the public. I care about the public.
I heard a nice little rant on the “news” a couple nights ago, words to the effect “pols no longer care what voters think of them. they only care what the donor class thinks”
Steve
Was a dog whistle.
ralph
Re: Pols no longer care.
Gerrymandered districts mean voters no longer matter. They get re-elected regardless of what voters think.
This just happened in Missouri where Amendment 3 allowing abortion passed but voters returned anti-abortion representatives to the state legislature.
Several things wrong with this statement, the first being that was over 30 years ago and things are very, very different today in healthcare land.
The number one problem with Hillary’s proposal was that it was from a strong, educated, intelligent, ambitious First Lady. If it had been from Al Gore the reaction would have been different. The next biggest problem was, at that point in time, we were still in the belief that government can do no right, thanks to Reagan, and any proposal from the government to fix an issue was always going to be passed on.
Speaking of being able to choose our own doctor, just over a year ago I had heart surgery. I’m still under the care of the cardiologist. About six months ago Cigna informed me that I was under the possibility of losing access to him. That if I wanted to continue to see him it would be at a much greater expense. (Something happened and he is still, thankfully, in-network). So much for being able to choose my own doctor! My point being the whole “choose your own doctor” was always a blatant lie by the Right to keep funneling money into insurance companies. Period, full stop.
Re: Ability to choose own doctor.
Recall that Hillary Care was our last attempt at national health care. It was compared to VA care where you see the doctor assigned when your appointment comes up.
The health care industry including insurance providers ran ads featuring that you give up the choice of doctor. Hillary Care failed badly and people thought health care could not be addressed. Obama Care was designed to maneuver around insurance company opposition. Single payer usually means no more health insurance companies.
Insurance network may force you to change doctors but you still choose from a list of doctors. Your doctor is not assigned to you.
Exactly on our side 100%. The entire lot of them need to grow up. It is highly unprofessional.
Those who think single payer is better or complain about the administrative costs of health insurance still must get around strong opposition from the insurance industry.
Do they have a plan worth discussing?
Mostly its a pipedream.
What is a pipe dream? The system that every other first world western nation has? I used to work for a British tech firm. Yes, their system has problems. They know it. None of them ever wanted our system.
You are right about opposition from the insurance industry. The entire reason why the ACA did not have a public option was meant to get around that opposition and to get GOP support. It did neither, and it is part of the reason premiums are as high as they are.
So you are standing hypothetically in front of a new business partnership. The new business has plenty of potential to do something everyone needs and wants for less money. But someone in your family tells you that all you do is dream.
You shut down your being? You just give up? You say well 30k deaths don’t matter? I gots mine and don’t need to be called a socialist by the dumb kids?
Ted Kennedy died right before the vote. His replacement stopped 60 votes for the public option.
Brain cancer but don’t look into it.
Ted Kennedy
Jimmy Carter
John McCain
Can you imagine a Venn diagram of USian voters? Try to find enough overlap to create a message that appeals to enough of them?
What do the “JCs” want? “we want to loot the planet and the people, for our own advancement, and we want the government to protect us while we do it”.
Easy, as long as you don’t look very far down the road.
It is not what is said. It is how it is said.
Promises as little lies go a long way. As in they will try to do something. They care. They are on our side.
Like opening up a happy meal to see the MCD cartoon characters. It is organized for the older maroons.
Inaction and the perception is a big mistake.
Arguing for the purple vote, the middle does nothing.
democracy is a food fight. Not throwing some food is opting out.