Mudeh2o

Why Healthcare Reformers Should Think About Income Inequality

I like your overall demeanor "retired at 58" as it appears to be on the side of personal choice. Belonging to a "co-op-acare" is certainly preferable to any government-designed obama-esque no-care prescription. Obama-care as presented in over 1,000 pages of pure politics and little healthcare would definitely be detrimental to your health.

Since I did work as an underwriter/broker for multiple insurance companies I may as well confess to that fact up front. There are simply too many variables which affect the cost of today's healthcare for the range of non-knowing consumers to comprehend; and those who don't pay anything for their healthcare have more of an attitude problem than a financial one.

Ever since the price of a cup of coffee exceeded $1 it became evident that becoming a railroad bum was too expensive. This non-job, too, evolved into something different - bum on a freeway exit.

Let's be frank about things: There is NO FREE LUNCH!
If you want to acquire something in a capitalist society, you need to be willing to exchange something of value you own for something you do not own.

Having lived under a former British healthcare system with all its inadequacies I was appalled at the lack of organization and priorities. No thank you. I'll gladly pay for the one aspirin I need to take rather than pay four times the amount through some politician's agenda.


On Jul 24 12:26 AM PhillyDan wrote:

> I am now retired and had to leave the work force at the age of 58
> due to a medical disability. In the last five years of working, the
> company that I had worked for reduced their portion of what they
> contributed to an employee's health-care insurance, therefore, the
> employee was footing an ever increasing amount of the insurance cost.
> At the same time, salary increases were being held down, this in
> turn was a double whammy for the employee. My personal opinion is
> that if most Employers had their way, they would opt out of employer-based
> programs and slowly over time they will. You think that insurance
> companies would recognize that danger and react by limiting premium
> increases.
>
> Ideally, if we were starting from scratch, we would implement a single-payer
> plan similar to how Canada's plan is implemented in that the Canadian
> Government is the single payer but not the provider of services they
> are still done by private Doctors and Hospitals. But because, we
> have a viable healthcare insurance industry that employes over two
> million people, it would not work without causing drastic turmoil.
> One solution would be to let Employers belong to a regional coop
> that manages the negotiations with several different insurance companies
> and offers the employees of the the companies a marketplace of plans
> to choose from at different price levels. The Coop would ensure that
> there is a minimum coverage plan available that is available from
> all insurers participating in the marketplace. There would be no
> pre-existing conditions, coverage would start on day one of employment.
> In addition, there could be a catastrophic plan to handle those employees
> that have chronic or genetic diseases that warrant more medical attention
> thus costs. They might have to pay a higher premium but it would
> reasonable compared to what they might have to pay today. Employers
> still contribute but reduce their costs of administering the plans.
> Employees benefit by having more plan options at differing cost levels.
> The Coops can maintain quality ratings of the insurance companies
> and more importantly the service providers.
> In addition, the Coops can provide input back to a Medpac organization
> that does a review of healthcare costs for Specialists, Procedures.
> Labs, Diagnostics, etc. to determine what is an appropriate price.
> Not price controls but pricing recommendations based on real data.
> Certainly there is more to be added, but there are solutions to how
> we develop healthcare reform. In addition, healthcare reform should
> be viewed as an ever changing reform that is recursive in nature
> and not just a static entity.

Coming Soon: The $600 Trillion Derivatives Emergency Meeting

Please. Laughter is hurting my ribs, I cannot sit . . .

Well said. Too late, but well said. Congrats.

Drilling in ANWR: What's Not to Like?

(Shake, shake)

Wake up. Omega wake up! You're dreaming again. You're experiencing that same old disastrous dream you've had the past 50 years.

Is Oil a Bubble? Part 3

Higher energy prices do not exclusively come out of the pockets of the American people; remember, energy is an earthly commodity.

If only Congress would stop pretending to be Little Red Riding Hood while acting as the Big Bad Wolf, they might realize the opportunity for a two-fer: [1] vastly more energy production within U.S. confines, and [2] a rather large increase in high-paying jobs in the energy-producing areas.

It'll be too late for places like Miami Beach when the cost of energy prevents tourism from arriving and staying in condos too expensive to cool.