My friend joined one of the HMOs,then needed to be in a skilled nursing home, was hospitalized but was sent to another skilled nursing home because they didn’t have a contract with the one she was in. She was devastated. She continued to pay for her room at her original skilled nursing home, and as soon as her rehab was finished and she was no longer covered under her HMO, she returned to her original skilled nursing home.

WARNING: If you or your loved one changes from the original Medicare for one of the HMOs being offered, you are not given the privilege of going to the doctors and to the nursing homes of your choice. When one is vulnerable, this can make a big difference.

Medicare, like every other system, needs to be evaluated and “tweeked” as the needs arise, but so far, it does a better job than the HMOs because it gives us more freedom to make choices.

The Alabama market, in essence, is socialized medicine. And, what are the results. Pre-screen on MRI’s. Denial of coverage for an infant at Tulane Hospital because it is outside its network. Hospitals who are in the top 100 for Cardiovascular disease being designated as a Tier 2 hospital (low quality), just because they would not agree to BCBS fee schedule.

John Goodman is, as usual correct, in his analysis. Death Panels already exist. The only way to relieve it of its duties is to give the premium dollar (in part) to the consumer (insured)…and relegate the insurance carrier to it original purpose….insure the unexpected. Insurance companies, in its present role, can be the enemy, but not as much as the government would be should they take over the role.

Keep the comments coming, John. Good Job!

That is patently untrue, as Medicare beneficiaries already know…

Reminder for those who do not: Section 4507 of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and backed by the court ruling in United Seniors Assn v. Shalala (1999).

Their goal is control– and even the Ms. Harrop’s of the world might begin to question if they understood the facts of how the right to spend your own money for legal health care services is what is at stake in this debate.

It’s a broad generalization to equate Obama’s “plan”, which to my knowledge doesn’t really exist yet, with the UK plan. As far as I can tell, its like equating apples to…well, nothing. We are debating as to how this will be paid for. The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. According to their site, “ The 2007/8 budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,500 for every man, woman and child in the UK.”

That’s not a lot of tax out of one’s yearly paycheck for free healthcare.

Also, hasn’t there been an inherent LACK of funding in Medicaid, which is different than the more successful Medicare?

Even Ms Frost above agrees… “Medicare, like every other system, needs to be evaluated and “tweeked” as the needs arise, but so far, it does a better job than the HMOs because it gives us more freedom to make choices.” Telling us an under-funded program, (in this case “medicaid”) is going to have problems proving timely care, is nothing we don’t already know. With due respect, that’s why the nation is debating reform now!

The question is how to cover 40 million Americans that don’t have coverage, and how to ensure the “insured” are REALLY covered when push comes to shove.

Most of your article focused on “negating” the fact that any government health system could work… I don’t really feel you did a great job at that…your arguments against the NHS and Medicaid as it applies to Harrop’s argument really didn’t cut it at all.

But could you please elaborate on the casualty insurance solution? How much would something like that cost monthly, and how much would the “lump sum” made available by an insurer be? I’m sure there must be more information you have about the successes of the “catastrophic care market”. Could you do a better job at explaining what this is and how much it would cost an average Joe?
Thanks

In my opinion the biggest problem and concern for people is paying catastropic medical bills. Most people can pay for regular health services, such as annual exams, a broken bone, Xrays, etc. We have catastrophic health insurance. Why aren’t more people purchasing it and paying for their routine health services?

The government should only step in when the people can’t pay for catastrophic health insurance, and when this same group of people can’t pay for the routine health services they need. The government, so I recall from my civics class, should only step in when the people can’t do for themselves.

We pay to maintain our cars. Why don’t we pay to maintain our bodies? Then, perhaps, more people would be concerned about their health habits. We would all learn that if they don’t take care of ourselves, we’ll pay more in health care costs. What currently is being promoted is: “Since the other guy” is paying, why worry?

Then proceed to defend the assertion that government choices in rationing are more desirable than private ones.

Facts are even more stubborn than theory. In this case both of them militate against the “everything is the same” assertion.

Finally, government failed to make society more civilized in either the USSR or Nazi Germany so it is clearly not the case that government “is what makes society more civilized.”

Cost containment is going to happen someday in USA, now or later.
So, public section can not blindly pass money to private insurance companies for ever.
Thus, we must create something that looks like what other nations have created where costs are managed better. Anti government ideologies will not serve us well. Government is what makes society more civilized, even with all the weaknesses that public sector has.