Agree or Disagree: Health Insurance Companies are the Root of the Problem

[berni_mccoy]

Poll question: Agree or Disagree: Health Insurance Companies are the Root of the Problem

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

Health insurance companies are the root of the healthcare crisis in the U.S. If we did away with health insurance companies and replaced with a single payer system, more Americans would have healthcare and healthcare in the U.S. would improve.

[NightWatcher]

1. health care needs to be driven by a desire to provide healthcare and not by profit motive

"Money trumps peace" as our glorious leader said. It also appears that money trumps health and welfare.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I dont see "profit motive" mentioned above, but I do see "promote the general welfare".

[RC]

2. The insurance and drug companies were deregulated.

They need to be reined back in. That is where the real problem is. Stop the ridicules copays. Go with a universal single payer, non profit, medicare/medicare type coverage.
Our drug and insurance situation in this country now is not much different from the war profiters profiting from the misery they cause.

Edit: I voted Disagree.

[featherman]

3. An important part but the AMA and big Pharma also

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. I disagree with the statement, but...

... I agree that lack of health insurance is the root.

One of the major cost drivers is unpaid medical debt. There is a signifigant segment of the population that makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but can't (or won't) buy insurance. They get sick or injured; they end up in urgent/critical care situations; they get charged the highest prices for healthcare, because an individual does not have the buying power of an insurance company; they get treated, and cannot ultimately pay. The unpaid debt ultimately gets passed on to the rest of us, causing prices to rise and starting the cycle anew.

I think mandatory private insurance is a better approach. Earmark a percentage of wages, or allow corporations to pick up the tab in exchange for tax credit. Let everyone choose a basic plan from a menu (say a $50 co-pay HMO type plan or a $2,500 yearly deductible type plan). Then let insurers and providers upsell options. Have the feds offer not-for-profit reinsurance to the health care providers in exchange for participation. I would require plans not to exclude for pre-existing conditions, but I would allow some limited rating (read: price increase) for correctible lifestyle issues, such as smoking, drug use, or excess BMI not caused by illness).

If you cut down the unpaid debt, but still allow for competition, costs should start to come under control.

[Deja Q]

5. They are a significant portion. And to those who say if everyone was fit prices would go down,

note how when gas prices go down, the cost of goods relying on being transported by gas guzzling vehicles don't go down in return.

So why would anyone believe the insurance companies when they say "get fit and premiums will improve"?

They won't.

Or, there'd have to be real proof on their part for credibility to return.

[awaysidetraveler]

6. I disagree: the root of the problem are the unreasonable fees of doctors--it should be illlegal

Actually, it's more a judicial issue than a legislative issue. They charge us whatever they want as it stands,
no matter how unreasonable that may be--no matter what the profit is that they ask.

Moreover, they've got us by the balls (in the case of testicular cancer that's expecially true) as
they can charge us whatever the market will accept in the form of a fee.

How much is your life worth? The answer is simple: how much can they take you for.

This is why Obama's response to the health care dilemma is more reasonable than Clinton's: Obama's looking
at the issue from the point of view of driving down costs, which is exactly where the focus should be.

[Barack_America]

7. As a medical student, I disagree.

The root of the problem is that our doctors don't value enough thorough patient histories and physical exams, instead relying on a barrage of diagnostic tests to diagnose patients.

That's the root of the problem. How much we pay for diagnostics and procedures comes secondary to that.

If we insist on maintaining these practices, we will bankrupt any "universal" healthcare plan we adopt.

[Vinca]

8. Absolutely, positively and they're aided and abetted by the

health care providers. Here's how it works. The insurance company tells the hospital we'll pay you 10% of the charge for an aspirin, currently billed at $1.00. The hospital agrees and ups the price of the aspirin to $10. The insurance company reviews the policy a few months later and informs the hospital they'll only pay a percentage for the $10.00 aspirin. And so it goes. If we have single payer, universal health care, the government would say $0.50 for the aspirin, end of story.

[RC]

10. I think you've got it. Now to get the insurance companies out of the

out of the equation.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. It's a complex issue with

many things contributing to the problem.