A "Bottom Line" Question
 

We've had all kinds of exchanges on whether the government can be trusted to run anything, let alone take an even larger responsibility than providing it for about 40% of Americans, as they do now thru Medicare and Medicaid. Everything anyone has said, eiher supporting the government option or de-bunking it, is pure opinion and really can't be either proven or refuted with any certainty.

But to really see how we feel about our healthcare and the different ways it could be provided as the result of healthcare reform legislation, let me pose a question.

First, there are a couple of simple facts that we will all accept, I think, that serve as the background to my question. I think we will all agree that the cost of healthcare to Americans is increasing at a rate that is unsustainable. Something has to be done to reduce the cost, both as a percentage of GDP as well as on a per capita basis. Doing nothing is not an option. My second "given" in setting up the question is that regardless of who will provide healthcare insurance in any healthcare reform legislation, we won't know all the details for some time after it's passage. The implementation details such as coverage, terms and cost will have to be worked out by government bureaucrats for government-run programs, and the private sector to meet the legislative requirements laid down by Congress in whatever bill gets passed.

So, given that the country needs healthcare reform and must do something, but that we really won't know what "something" is until long after the legislation is passed, I pose this question...

Which of the following choices would you endorse as the basis of healthcare insurance crafted by Congress?

1. Continuation of the Medicare program. But in addition, the creation of a "government option" insurance policy that citizens could choose at their option in place of any private insurance they currently have, or might buy instead of the new option. Citizens who could not afford insurance would be required to take the government option. The government would pay the premiums for insurance for all those who could not afford to pay them.
   
2. Medicare would be discontinued. No "government option" would be offered to insure those Americans that are not currently insured. Private, for-profit insurance companies would be required to design insurance policies to offer to all citizens. To the extent that some people could not afford to buy the private insurance, the government would pay the premiums to the private insurers. If you have Medicare now, it would be discontinued and replaced with private insurance whose coverages, terms and cost would be determined later.

Neither of these options is going to happen, of course. But I pose the question to determine how many of us would really be willing to give up government insurance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid and place the decision for what their healthcare will be and what it will cost in the hands of the private sector.

Where do you stand?

Number Two - in a heartbeat!!!

Given those two options, and they represent a reasonable choice, I would cheerfully replace my Medicare Insurance with private insurance where I had the opportunity to select my carrier and pay for those benefits in addition to the base benefits as I choose and can afford. I have experienced, twice, Medicare overruling my cardiologists recommendations. The result of these actions have had a severe impact on my health and well-being. Having faceless government bureaucrats with zero accountability making life or death decisions does not satisfy me.

Bottom line is
 

if these are the type of changes to be made in health care I don't want any part of it. Even with the lowest level Blue Cross HMO that I have it has been great. I certainly am not willing to take a chance on the government forcing me into less than I already have.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009...941.htm?page=0

Had the question been posed before the establishment of Medicare, then the answer would seem obvious.

Now that most of us have sunk a lot of our money over the years into this "system" and now have little options available since the insurance industry has tailored itself into the Medicare Supplement business, the answer again seems obvious.

Given only those choices, number 2.

However I disagree with your basic premise that you think we all should agree with. I believe that health care cost will do the same as every free market item and cost will level off or come down when people stop paying for it because it's to expensive.

It has already started to happen with the high deductibles and larger co-pays. Go out and protect yourself with a policy that has a $5000 annual deductible, a 20% co pay from $5000 to $100000 and a cap of $1,000,000. They are available and actually very cheap. Then purchase another policy that covers 1st through 20th doctor visit with a $50 co pay and a cap of $25000 with a prescription drug co pay. Again very affordable. Combine the two and you have manageable health care at an affordable price. Maximum out of pocket with worst case would be $25,000 in a year. Is that good, no, but would you survive, yes. This type plan would protect 95% of us and is available today and cost is reasonable. Yes you could get hit with some really bad illness that would overrun this plan. But seems they have that built into the government plan by sending you home with a pain pill if your to expensive to save.

I agree somewhat....Tort reform is the only answer...Too many wasteful tests because everybody is worried about being sued.

Medicare has $36-trillion unfunded liability
 

Read John Stossel:

http://reason.com/news/show/135266.html

You are so right...
 

and yes, we did not/do not have a choice about Medicare and have/and are still paying dearly into it.

Good Article
 

Good article. I agree with him. Well written with not a lot of partisan twist. That's why designing this beast is proving so tough. In the end, if it doesn't have at least these two things, it won't work...

• Tort reform
• Higher taxes

I never thought I would say I agree with you....except I worry about the tax issue.

And neither of the two will make health care more affordable to anyone.

Are you really saying that with the fear of being sued removed and therefore many needless expensive test eliminated, the cost of healthcare would not go down drastically?

Very well put, vk. You ask? I offer my stand...... to not allow the private sector to take control. What a horrible thought!!! It has been obvious that they would rob the people blind with their corporate golden fleece. It has been definitely proven what greed lurks in the upper echelon of the private sectors. No way!!!

Hmmmm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052201536.html
Unlike the public sector? How about recently convicted US Representative William Jefferson. The public servant who got caught with $90,000 dollars cold cash in his freezer? Estimated that he also received over half a million in bribes?
The public sector Congress who just order jets for their private travels with taxpayer money after bad-mouthing the automakers for taking their private jet to congressional hearings?
The same public employees that just gave us the biggest deficit ever?

So, what "needless" tests have you had because your doctor(s) was/were afraid that you would sue them?