or course, i decided a few hours ago this bourbon wasn’t going to drink itself, so what do i know?

Haven’t you heard of second and third opinions?

Wait, I thought we were trying to inspire thrift in those irresponible, sick, poor people, not have them run around spending money on doctor’s visits like a sailor on shore leave. Which is it?

Extending life no matter the cost is a pretty silly proposition. I may be a little heartless, but I don’t belong to the spare no expense crowd. You have to look at quality of life, length of life extention, cost of life extension. A million dollar operation on a 60 year old man that will extend his life to 70 may not make sense, as opposed the the same operation on a 10 year old (extending their life to 70). These may seem heartless, but again it comes to the idea that people would probably think twice about these costs if they were footing they bill, but when a faceless insurance company is doing it. End the end everyone owes god a death, and some sense has to be put into it. Does that mean people should die becasue the can’t afford a medication, no, but there is a balance that has to be looked, at there is a real cost.

That being said I believe i have already said that some changes need to be made to allow accessibility for insurance for the already sick. The market incentives for insurance companies to pay for treatment is that people won’t buy policies from companies that render services. There may be some short term profit, but the company that had a reputation of denying all claims would soon lose a lot business. They are other incentives for insurance companies to provide preventive care the keeps cost down since insurance companies invest the premuims and make a return on that to, so where the can avoid larger expenses in the future it makes sense….

What are the market incentives for insurance companies to enroll sick people? What are the market incentives for insurance companies to pay for medical treatments? How would either of these actions increase profit?

How is health care any different than anything else a person decides? One doesn’t have to be in construction to get understand their options in a remodel? You have doctors to advise just like anything else.

Uh, player, can you think this through a little more thoroughly? Is it possible - just possible - that one’s relationship with a doctor is just a leeeetle different than one’s relationship with a remodeling contractor? Like, could you give me a ballpark estimate of how likely I am to die if the installation of my new cabinets is significantly delayed?

High deductible plans coupled with credits that go towards the deductible are a way to keep insurance and health care costs down.

Ah, no wonder you trust the market to take care of everything. You haven’t actually considered any aspect of health care policy other than price-setting. Can you make, like, a chart or something that indexes what you think is a reasonable mortality rate according to income?

How is health care any different than anything else a person decides? One doesn’t have to be in construction to get understand their options in a remodel? You have doctors to advise just like anything else.

High deductible plans coupled with credits that go towards the deductible are a way to keep insurance and health care costs down. Almost every major company is offering these kind of plans. When you couple paying some the deductible cost, the poor people who have to decide if they can afford to emergency room won’t really have to. Forcing to people to think about the costs of their choices will force them to make better choices, lower costs for everyone, why still providing healthcare.

It’s government’s place to set up the frame work and rules and rule of law and then get they hell out of the way. The most efficient way for these things to get handled is through market forces.

The most efficient (and here, efficient=profitable) outcome for a health care market is for all sick people to heal on their own or die. Insurers lose money when they pay for treatments. So their incentives are to charge higher premiums, only enroll healthy people, and deny coverage whenever they can. There is no efficent market for health care. Sick people don’t have the time or expertise to evaluate various options, and maximize their value per dollar. If every person is equipped to make his or her own decisions in order to arrive at the best outcome, why do we have doctors?

The market doesn’t solve problems, it sets prices. To solve problems takes actual politics and consensus and stuff.

Veterans. Duh.

Look, I am not unsympathetic to the idea the health insurance needs to be more accessible in this country. I think everyone who works should have the opportunity to buy into a group rate of some kind and there probably needs to be some protections about preexisting conditions, but I did a quick check and a family of 4 with adults in their 50s can get insurance from 300 to 1300 a month depending on deductibles etc. with the 300 plan having a 5000 deductible 10000 per family per year then full coverage… I don’t that asking someone to spend 3600 a year to cover their family is all the unreasonable or burdensome. Obviously there are some problems like being denied coverage or whatever, and I am sure it’s more complex, but I also think that some of the problems are because people make poor choices, which often mimimilized.

As for contraception, requirements vary more state-by-state but it can be the same idea. More often though, contraception’s provided by facilities and it’s up to the state how much if anything is reimbursed (depending on which Medicaid waivers the state participates with). I think there are only 1 or 2 states in the deep south that have flat out restrictions. Contraception/Abortion are, for insurance/coverage purposes more just a political football. They’ll always be performed and most always be covered by some means, though it may or may not be codified in policy.

I don’t understand your point about the benefit and law. If the legislation says all health insurance have a concreception benefit, are you saying they can print a list of birth control that they can buy? I don’t see how if a benefit structure exists that the insurance provider doesn’t pay for it.

I agree that tax incentives benefit middle and wealthly people more than poor. Fact of the matter is poor people don’t really pay much taxes to begin with.

I think the adoption in foreign countries as opposed to foster care has more to do with laws here as well as the desire to get *new* babies as opposed to older children….

I think the mass model makes sense, because it punishes those who could afford insurance and don’t get it….

If there were plans that covered bare minimums of true emergencies (broken bones, busted appendixes) and major illnesses (cancer etc) you could have a relatively cheap premium, which you could then mandate like car insurance.

That would actually be a more expensive premium due to flooding the risk pool with the high-utilizers. Mammograms are cheaper than mastectomies. Diabetic screening is cheaper than severing limbs or dialysis. Pre-natal vitamins are cheaper than treating spinal bifida. Preventive care is cheaper than acute care.

And this:

“the over legislation of what has to be covered in health insurance (from contraception to mental health)”

Not true either. Doesn’t increase cost whatsoever as the legislation to which you refer does not require that these things be paid for so much as a benefit structure exist for them. The benefit structure need not be a generous one and the underwriting mechanism is wholly determined by the plan.

And the Canadian model is not the gold standard by any means. None of we universal care hippies want the Canadian model (we actually want a uniquely American free-market model a la Massachusetts/Heritage Foundation). Though several European models spend less money to cover a greater percentage of their population with better health outcomes, including those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

And I should say tax credits do not incentivize those who are poor. Look at the adoption tax credit, it’s mostly utilized by those adopting children in foreign countries (versus foster care). Poor people don’t use it, and they’re also the ones more likely to adopt kids in foster care vs. overseas.