napkin presentation: health care reform = insurance reform

[nianfong]

napkins that sum up the health care issue pretty well i think:
http://www.slideshare.net/danroam/healt ... apkins-all

[Teazer]

nicely done.

[cdobe]

I'ld like to add to what is on page 34, that private insurance can compete with a public one when they keep the ability to reject new customers and when they provide a better performance than a public system, which can only cover a basic health care. Some private health insurances in Germany for instance cover accupuncture. If you like the service and can afford it, you will become a customer there. They're not really competing.

[Steve James]

It seems fairly accurate. I couldn't get to the end, but there's clearly a conflict of interest between the insurance company (who wants you to pay premiums, but stay well) and "health care providers" who depend on your illness for revenue. Well, they'll rightly say that it's you who depend on them for care, whether you want to or not. So, maybe it's not a pure conflict of interest. But, it still means that you (i.e., "we" the consumer) are the only ones putting money into the system, and the only ones who cannot derive a profit (except the profit of being in good health and out of the hospital). Of course, it would be nice if the insurers would put money into keeping their customers healthy. Maybe a "good health" rebate (% of premiums paid) after a fixed period of time, just like the 'good drivers discount" that some auto-insurers offer.

[qiphlow]

+1 on the good health rebate.

[Chris Fleming]

I like how people are speaking out about this:





Personally, I say fuck it. I know that isn't an option for most people, but for me, I say take care of yourself and don't buy the thinking that you have to be "covered" by insurance, paying some racketeering company money each month for services you don't need.

[Steve James]

Nice ..."America's thoughts" Well, I listened. He says "stay away from my kids", but I'm not sure what was said about "education" or 'indoctrination.' But, then he says that he doesn't want to be forced to change his insurance plan. That doesn't suggest that he's against insurance. He's in favor of it ... thus "America's" in favor of it. The stuff about the "brown shirts" .... well, if he was called a brown shirt, I think he deserves an apology. The same way that, if he calls Pelosi a Nazi, he owes her one.

As for "paying some racketeering company money each month for services you don't need", if you have a car, you do it; If you have a home, you do it; shucks, you may even have "life" insurance . But, that's not even the problem. The problem is "Not" having insurance to pay, especially if you "have" a job ... because, with the price of medical care the way it is, you will lose everything you own when/if you need those services. And, that's really "when", not "if" --unless you manage to die fast. I agree with that ideal, though, and I agree that insurance is an absolute waste of my personal finances as long as I'm healthy. If you don't have insurance, but even if you do, it's a good idea to have a health care proxy that says "no extraordinary means" will be used to prolong life.

[DaDa]

Welp, its simple as this,


It's not a communist vs socialist issues. It's all huzz-buzz created by people to distract from the real point of it all. Pure and simply, it is an economic issue. American healthcare is so expensive that soon, Americans won't be able to receive the medical care they need.

if American doesn't reform its healthcare soon, there won't be a need in 10 years. The forecast is that healthcare expenditure will rise by another 90-95% under the current system.

[Teazer]

Interesting article: Five myths about health care around the world

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html

It ends with:
"In many ways, foreign health care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health care administration from the other industrialized democracies. "