Palin on healthcare bill

Is it fair that an 18 year old male is charged far more for auto insurance than an 18 year old female? Or that someone with three tickets is charged more than someone with none?
Health Insurance is provided at a fee based on probabilities. Females under 50 generally have higher health costs than males. Males over 50 cost more. If everyone does not pay their true cost, then someone must subsidize the difference. If the government option passes, that would be the taxpayers. Now it would be other policy holders. Is that fair?

I can live without a car and so can anyone else. My health and the ability to to continue to live should I be struck with a disease or accident is a hail of a lot more important than car insurance. That the two are considered to be in the same category is a huge issue.

The taxpayers already pay for others insurance, the elected officials who believe they are the only ones who have a right to gov. funded insurance. I pay every week for others to be insured and retired, yet my life is not deemed important enough to insure. Is that fair?

To put heath in the same category as life, home or auto is unfathomable to me. If I have my health, I can work and be a productive member of society. Auto and health are not even in the same universe.

This is what drives me crazy. We don't expect auto insurance to cover car maintenance, it is for emergencies. Nor do we expect a homeowner's policy to pay for house maintenance. Somehow, somewhere in history, this concept was lost regarding health insurance. It is too late to change this perception as Pandora's box has already been opened, but if there was some way to have health insurance that was insurance with a mix of tax credits and market priced medical services for routine needs, we would be so, so far better off.

A-I am not trying to compare property to health, just pointing out that what we are debating is not health insurance at all, rather it is the funding of health maintenance. I am just saying that the debate might be moving in a different direction if insurance was defined as it is traditionally understood and an effort to remove third parties out of the payment picture as often as possible was made. The reason services are so outrageously expensive is because third parties are so heavily involved as it is. Irregardless of this fact, we are just so convinced that we have to be able to present an insurance card to a receptionist and focus on a low co-pay or the entire system will crumble.

This is what drives me crazy. We don't expect auto insurance to cover car maintenance, it is for emergencies. Nor do we expect a homeowner's policy to pay for house maintenance. Somehow, somewhere in history, this concept was lost regarding health insurance. It is too late to change this perception as Pandora's box has already been opened, but if there was some way to have health insurance that was insurance with a mix of tax credits and market priced medical services for routine needs, we would be so, so far better off.

I think we lost that concept because medical expenses became so ridiculous for basic ailments that we couldn't just pay for it like we do an oil change or new furnace and humans don't have warranties or service contracts. Prescription medicines, imaging, and lab tests blurred the line between routine care and "emergency" by pushing the bills into the thousands and turning every unplanned doctor's visit into a financial "emergency".

I agree that market priced medical services would go a long way to solving the problem - I wouldn't have a problem paying a flat fee to go to the doctor for my annual physical or an unscheduled ailment, just like I don't have a problem paying a flat fee to go to the dentist every 6 months, or to go to the eye doctor once a year, or to get a flu shot.........

But what is a fair market price?

Is it $2,000 for a quick visit to an out-of-state ER for a broken arm?

Is it $180 for a 15 minute annual gyno exam?

Is it $500 for a fasting blood test?

Someone told me today that a local medical facility is claiming a swine flu test costs $800.

Is it $250 for a month's prescription?

I don't know who is the most responsible for the rapidly escalating health care costs - doctors who order too many tests, bureaucrats who complicate everything, pharmaceutical companies, ambulance chasing lawyers, insurance executives, or people who abuse their bodies and the system, but IMO the reason we NEED health care reform is because people TRULY can't afford health care because the system is so screwed up and inefficient.

I understand and I concur. I had a friend tell me yesterday that she has a small policy and it helps, but she will still end up in bankruptcy if she had a major medical issue. She said one thing that struck me, "I couldn't believe the difference in the way I am treated as a human being when I have an insurance card in my hand and when I don't." People are not filing bankruptcy over car or house insurance issues.

I like that you termed it health maintenance and I agree with you 100 percent that we should not be hooked on the small co-pay as the crux over insurance. My fears lie in what if I can get decent coverage, I pay for it with the skin off my back and then they deny my coverage, as scooter bug pointed out. Insurance companies now have even those who have insurance afraid of going for care in case it's denied. And right now, those with progressive medical issues are not presenting to their physicians because they are afraid they will never get coverage.

I am lucky, my Doctor bills me after my visit and allows me to pay every month if my bill gets too big, but I am up sheet creek as far as having any test ran or any more progressive care if needed.

My understanding of the Swedish health-care system is that they cut out the middle man, all are insured and it's rated one of the top in the world and it's not socialized.[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken, the Swedes pay the highest taxes in the world at around 48% and have a population of 9.3 million. Our illegal immigrant population is estimated at a couple million short of double that number. I'm not saying that their system wouldn't work in the US by any means because I am far from an expert on HC. IMO it is hard to compare the success level of the two systems because of the vast difference in population size, both legal and illegal...how high our taxes will be in 10 years ???

I understand and I concur. I had a friend tell me yesterday that she has a small policy and it helps, but she will still end up in bankruptcy if she had a major medical issue. She said one thing that struck me, "I couldn't believe the difference in the way I am treated as a human being when I have an insurance card in my hand and when I don't." People are not filing bankruptcy over car or house insurance issues.

I like that you termed it health maintenance and I agree with you 100 percent that we should not be hooked on the small co-pay as the crux over insurance. My fears lie in what if I can get decent coverage, I pay for it with the skin off my back and then they deny my coverage, as scooter bug pointed out. Insurance companies now have even those who have insurance afraid of going for care in case it's denied. And right now, those with progressive medical issues are not presenting to their physicians because they are afraid they will never get coverage.

I am lucky, my Doctor bills me after my visit and allows me to pay every month if my bill gets too big, but I am up sheet creek as far as having any test ran or any more progressive care if needed.



My understanding of the Swedish health-care system is that they cut out the middle man, all are insured and it's rated one of the top in the world and it's not socialized.[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken, the Swedes pay the highest taxes in the world at around 48% and have a population of 9.3 million. Our illegal immigrant population is estimated at a couple million short of double that number. I'm not saying that their system wouldn't work in the US by any means because I am far from an expert on HC. IMO it is hard to compare the success level of the two systems because of the vast difference in population size, both legal and illegal...how high our taxes will be in 10 years ???

I agree on their tax issue and number issue, but my understanding was this insurance is sold by private companies, directly to the consumer. If I get time, I will try to post it later. I am on deadline today and tomorrow, so it may be middle of the week, before I can find it..

The biggest thing I took from it was that all were happy with their coverage, except none of the Doctors were getting rich (I say that due to the quote in the article I remember) I think looking at other models might help us find a way to fix the broken healthcare system we are now facing. No one wants to pay higher taxes and no ones want's to die due to lack of preventaive or emergency care. There has to be something we can do to balance things out.

This is what drives me crazy. We don't expect auto insurance to cover car maintenance, it is for emergencies. Nor do we expect a homeowner's policy to pay for house maintenance. Somehow, somewhere in history, this concept was lost regarding health insurance. It is too late to change this perception as Pandora's box has already been opened, but if there was some way to have health insurance that was insurance with a mix of tax credits and market priced medical services for routine needs, we would be so, so far better off.

Krauthammer: I would make Americans pay half a percent tax on their health insurance and create a pool to socialize the cost of medical errors. That would save hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to insure the uninsured. And second, I would abolish the absurd prohibition against buying health insurance in another state -- that reduces competition and keeps health insurance rates artificially high.

SPIEGEL: But you also need to cut back on healthcare expenses.

Krauthammer: It is absolutely crazy that in America employees receive health insurance from their employers -- and at the same time a tax break for this from the federal government. It's a $250 billion a year loophole in the government's budget. If you taxed healthcare benefits, you would have enough revenue for the government to give back to the individual to purchase their own insurance. If you did those two reforms alone, you would have the basis for affordable health insurance in America.
What the Democrats seem to be aiming for, however, is something somewhat different: the government gets control of the healthcare system by proxy; you heavily regulate the insurance companies, you subsidize the uninsured. That kind of reform would also work, but less efficiently -- and because of its unsustainable costs, we would, in the end, have to go to a system of rationing, the way the British do, the way the Canadians do, there is no other way. Obama can't say any of that, the word rationing is too unpopular.

One concern I have about creating a fund for "medical errors" is that if hospitals etc. don't have to pay for their mistakes, there is less incentive for them to avoid them.

Far too often $$$ is the only reason corporations do the right thing.

I do think that expenses could be reduced if we could get rid of nonsense malpractice suits and the ridonkulous cost of malpractice insurance, but I don't know exactly HOW to do that.