Regarding changes in American health care

Post Reply New Topic

Well good for you.........I am glad you can handle all the paper work and stress that would go into sueing a large insurance company, and that you can afford a lawyer. There are however those who cannot even afford any insurance to begin with....and who are they going to sue? But as I said I don't like Obamacare either.

When Canada created their health care system, the bill was 8 pages long, and everybody knew exactly how it worked.

We get these convoluted bills because our "representatives" only care about themselves and by extension whoever is giving them money.

Very satisfied with our health care system here in Canada

Money isn't the issue, you just have to know what your rights are, and know who to contact.

And I bet the insurance just love if their customers know all of their rights, and actually put them to use to keep the insurance company in line.......but yes it is certainly possible for one to know their rights and who to contact but of course do you think everyone has that going for them? even if they know their rights there is no garantee they know who to contact......just throwing that out there as there are variations.

I don't even have insurance.......but I imagine its not all rainbows and cupcakes for people with insurance either.

No, they really don't like it. However I got a news flash, government doesn't like it either and is worse than insurance companies.

The reason why I liked the Republican Legislation was it opened up more competition from across state lines and if I remember correctly allowed small businesses to pool resources to bargain like a large company (I thought people here liked collective bargaining). An insurance company isn't likely to try to screw over a large company that represents hundreds of policies if not thousands.

I got a news flash that all the huge corporations and the government are causing problems and lots of people are fed up with it.

Two problems with that:

First, the legislation isn't enacted. Draft legistlation doesn't fill a policy vacuum. If the Supremes strike down existing legislation, either in whole or in part, the vacuum will exist from that moment--the US Supreme Court does not engage in the practice of suspending its judgements for a fixed period to give Congress the opportunity to enact remedial legislations.

Second, the Republican legislation will do nothing to control health care costs. That is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about.

US governments (all levels aggregated) spend more per capita on health care than Canadian governments. The US governments also spend a higher percentage of GDP on health care than ours do. And within that smaller slice of public money, we manage to provide universal, medically necessary care, and achieve comparable (and in many cases better) outcomes than you do. And the key to all of this is that the single payer, public system in Canada is better able to contrain costs.

You can tinker with the private insurance system all you like, but you have to recognize that medical insurance causes medical costs to rise, because consumers have no incentive to be price sensistive.

Even under the Republican legislation, insurance companies will be caught between unconstrained costs of benefits, and a compulsion to cover. The only remedy is to pass on the costs to coverage holders. Freeloaders who don't buy health insurance until they are at risk of getting sick will break your system--and an aging population is going to make that all the more likely.