Healthcare solution thoughts

So with all of the healthcare discussions going on I had 2 thoughts I haven't seen before and want your opinions on their validity.

1. We can insure our children until they are 26, what about letting us insure our parents/grandparents on our policies once they are 70 or disabled?

2. Many people do not want a single payer or "universal healthcare" because they feel we shouldn't have to pay for other peoples insurance. So what about a "charity Insurance Program"?

• People that can't afford it would have to qualify of course.
• People would donate to it just like any charity and it would be tax deductible like a normal charity.
• This would allow people that want to help to help and people that don't to not.
• It would create a large pool of participants that in theory would help lower the cost.

 

1) People over 70 will be far more likely to need healthcare than those under 26.
2) WHY? It's still paying for other people's insurance. I don't think there would be enough money raised.

 

Some Americans are really stupid.. Americans with insurance are already paying for the elderly, indigent and million dollar premature babies. Its called Cost Shifting and its been in effect for over 30 years.

 

Agreed, hince allowing the ability to cover them under your insurance and relieving some burden on Medicare/Medicaid.

Correct, the public would still be paying for other people's insurance, but it would be their choice. There might not be, but how do you know until you try. All stats say America is in the top 3 for giving to charities.

 

I really hope you weren't referring to me as the stupid one. That is insulting and does nothing to progress a discussion on fixing a problem.

You are correct that all insurance is at it's rudimentary level is them charging the healthy to take care of the not healthy. Many of the "elderly" and disabled can't afford health insurance though and are therefore on Medicare/Medicaid. If I was allowed to carry my disabled Mother-in-law on my insurance though it would relieve some of the burden placed on those 2 programs and by all accounts give my mother-in-law access to better insurance.

 

Eliminate the middleman.. the insurance company.

 

If we had a free market health insurance you would be able to put anyone on your policy -- but then the premium would have to be adjusted accordingly.
Donating would work if you could then deduct the donations from your income tax. And churches could help by donating. How about stopping foreign aid and using that money for insurance for the poor.

 

Free market health insurance? What is that? There is no free market in healthcare. You can't shop for an appendectomy or a pacemaker.

 

It means shopping for health insurance.

 

Dump ideology. Adopt pragmatism.

There are around 200 nations on earth, and the most advanced have arrived at a shared paradigm that covers all citizens at far lower cost than the US shells out as it assigns medical expenses for tens of millions uninsurd to the taxpayer's tab.

Meanwhile, the federal government subsidizes everyone with employer-administered plans and imposes that administrative burden upon private enterprise.

Cut out the superfluous middle-man profiteers. Advantage economy of scale to the greatest extent possible. Realize the actuarial desirability of maximizing the risk pool.

When anyone touts an airy-fairy notion concerning healthcare policy, demand a real-world example of their ideal.

 

Most physicians accept many different insurance plans and the administrative costs add 25 to 30% to practice overhead because every plan is different.. different paperwork , different drug schedules. There is also additional cost for physicians or staff calling to change a prescription that is not allowed by a particular plan. Some of my practices saw increases as much as 40%. Insurance companies add a layer of cost to the physician practice.

 

Please provide documented evidence that "charity healthcare" actually provided healthcare for everyone who needed it.

 

Charity healthcare is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

Charity healthcare is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

Everything that I have ever seen when it comes to "charity healthcare" is more akin to fundraising for the church in question rather than providing actual healthcare for those in need. I could be wrong which is why I asked the question.

 

Groups raise money sometimes for an individual patient in their community... and there are some clinics where doctors donate a few hours a week to indigent patient care usually on a sliding scale. I set up a sliding scale clinic across the street from the ER years ago and it was very successful. Patients were being seen by an FP or referred as needed and it stopped the hemorrhaging in my ER.

The objective since the 1980s was to stop escalating costs thru one strategy or another. ACA slowed it and provided healthcare for more Americans, but its flawed.

We need to go to single payer- private delivery and close the VA hospitals.

 

Can't I'm not sure it has ever been tried, but if charities can raise money to feed the hungry, why not raise money to insure the uninsured.

Again, I'm just throwing out ideas for review and discussion. If you only try and fix problems with stuff that has been tried before and not open yourself to all possibilities you are limiting the possibilities to correct it.

 

This is more what I'm talking about. You are correct that this happens, but usually to pay for the hospital bills themselves. What if the money was raised to pay for the insurance ahead of time is my thought.

 

Adding a layer of administrative costs is not a winner.

 

Charities have been around for centuries and so have healthcare needs.

The reason why charities have not addressed healthcare needs is because they have an agenda that is NOT healthcare.

Since the agenda of charities is not healthcare it is not surprising that they have only exploited healthcare as a means to further their own agenda.

And yes, in that respect charities are no different to the current profit agenda of the Wall Street Casino Bosses. They are exploiting healthcare for their own greed based agenda.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with what you are trying to do. You need an option that does not have an ulterior agenda.

How about if We the People provide for the General Welfare by establishing a NON-PROFIT, SECULAR healthcare solution that covers everyone?

That way the Government OF the People will be doing something FOR the People.

 

The government adds nothing but layers though.

 

Nope, insurance companies do. .. in 1992 alone all my practice overheads jumped 25 to 35%.. all in administrative cost to deal with insurance companies.

 

Before there was insurance, healthcare was up to the family or charity of people many times. That went away when insurance companies came on the scene and regulations began to be applied.

Please educate me on this topic. I understand that many charities are not how they represent themselves, but I'm not aware of charities taking advantage of the healthcare problems.

The Government of the people and for the people was not intended to CARE for the people, but give them the opportunities and freedoms to do that themselves. In the past when that wasn't possible charity and good citizens stepped in. This belief is still strong within America still today, so politicians are hoping to find a balance between the 2 beliefs. I think. Not sure who the politicians are for now a days to be honest.

 

No argument, but you can't tell me that a new agency within the US government, chalk full of new regulations would do any better a job. They can't even handle veterans well, let alone an entire country.

So you're changing one layer for another layer.

 

You don't need a new agency.. Medicare is already in place. VA hospitals should be sold off to private or corporate entities.. and veterans could go to any hospital they choose.