Posted by micki on 4/19/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
5.  Divorce healthcare from corporations' benefit package (in other words pay the employee and let them choose from employer-negotiated group insurance or go outside of the company, allowing insurance to be portable state-to-state.

 not sure how I feel about that. Do you think that would solve some of our Heath care problems ? I kind of like my companies health insurance - $180 a month, $15 co-pay.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/19/2012 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by micki on 4/19/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
5.  Divorce healthcare from corporations' benefit package (in other words pay the employee and let them choose from employer-negotiated group insurance or go outside of the company, allowing insurance to be portable state-to-state.

 not sure how I feel about that. Do you think that would solve some of our Heath care problems ? I kind of like my companies health insurance - $180 a month, $15 co-pay.

The problem with the setup on this issue, as I see it is:

You pay that rate and co-pay, while your company pays the rest of the premium to the group. You are still earning that money the company pays.  It's just not passing through your accounts.  This helps to make the costs are transparent to the user, which gives you less decision-making ability on the procedures you need.  The plans are selected by the company meaning there is less competition between insurance companies.  Market pricing does not occur because insurance companies and (mostly) Medicare decide what they'll pay.  Providers make up the shortfalls from the "single-payer portion" (Fed- Medicare, State - Medicaid) which often doesn't even cover what the provider has to pay to accomplish a procedure, by charging non-market rates to everyone else, leaving the less insured (or uninsured) to pay even higher prices.  People being directly involved with payment of premiums and actual costs present actual market forces on pricing, which will help keep costs in line.

One of the many problems with going toward the current President's vision of "single payer" is that the single payer sets the price of what gets paid for care, regardless of actual cost, or better yet, with an eye on limiting what the provider can make.  This takes away freedom from the provider of the product or service to pursue a profitable venture, which should be their right as a business entity.  Once that goes away, it will act as a limiter to the supply of the product or service because there will be better options for people to get into a different business than healthcare.

Part of the reason the healthcare system is broken is because people aren't exposed to the true costs, and because they do not exert the type of market force that occurs in other sectors.

(This is only a snapshot of the picture as I understand it).

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/20/2012 8:05:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if you need explosives.    If doctors/surgeons had a menu, you'd know what they charge and you could shop around.

Broken leg - $388
Blood test - $225
Physical - $75

They can't have that.  Because if it costs the doctors $325 to provide the $388 procedure, the government will tell them Medicare will only pay $145, leaving the insureds and uninsured to pay the difference.  Or they can not take Medicare at all and charge $370 and have an acceptable profit level.

But the broader point is, if you knew the costs, you could shop.  As long as it's camoflauged and we live under the illusion that it's "free" if it's paid for by someone else, it will continue to be obscure.........