I have heard doctors say this for years . We can have veterans hospitals and charity hospitals but the middle class are burdened with the poor and the rich .
The rich pay only the same rates as the middle class does .
They often seek addiction treatment for their kids and wifes because they are off earning money all the time .
The poor can't afford it and the middle well they break a kids arm once and he learns to stay off drugs and avoid that 15,000 dollar 30 day program . 1200 dollar cast verses 15,000 . I say we need to get rid of insurance all together .
Cancel work mens comp and make employers pay for injuries at work .
If each person only had to pay what they owed instead of what everyone owes divided by everyone we would be better off .
2007-10-02 07:37:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"The rich pay only the same rates as the middle class does."
Right, they pay the same amount for the same service?
Why stop with health care - why not just make "the rich" pay $40,000 for a Toyota Corolla so the rest of us can pay $8,000 instead of $12,000.
Why?
Because then "the rich" - who actually pay their bills on time - will STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE.
Again, what you propose is not only wrong, but unworkable.
2007-10-02 07:47:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
What a great idea. If we did this there would be some checks on the runaway inflation in the medical industry. Then if a doctor charged 160.00 for an appointment, he would have to give some value for it instead of 5 minutes with his back to you inputting stuff into the computer so that you can get heart meds. Perhaps we wouldn't need all the latest and greatest machines duplicated in every hospital, each costing 10 million dollars. Somehow, before all the high tech stuff, doctors managed to function quite well, and patients were a lot happier with them. Yes, we have some new technology that saves lives, but we also have a lot of lives prolonged, with the patient in a vegetative state too, and I am not sure that this is a good thing. I think that it is necessary to understand that most of the time, these things are not needed, anymore than 28000 square foot houses are needed for a family of 4. Perhaps if there was a budget that had to be considered, it would be adhered to.
2007-10-02 14:55:35 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
As an actuary [1], I have had discussions with my colleagues along the lines of what you are proposing. Much of what we call health insurance today does not constitute insurable events. It's like buying insurance to pay for groceries or to get oil changes for your car. They are not random events.
The consequence of the arrangements is to have destroyed the doctor-patient relationship. Insurance and government bureaucrats are the paying customers for doctors. It shouldn't really be hard to fathom how costs have exploded. However, government granted monopolies in terms of licensing and pharamceutical treatment also contribute to the problems.
All that being said, there is a place for catastrophic health insurance coverage. It would be wise to purchase coverage against devastating illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and so forth.
So you can tell your friends that at least one insurance professional agrees with your proposal.
2007-10-02 15:33:28 · answer #3 · answered by Joe S 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
that would work but try getting our corporate bought politicians to go along is another story . Insurance has become extortion if you have it you lose a lot of money paying for it ,if you dont have it you lose a lot of money if you get sick -its really a no win situation for anyone involved ( except insurance co.s and hospitals (who really arent as happy as they could be ).and as for the statement above you could also create a govt guaranteed health bond(S) to pay for new technologies etc with a guaranteed rate of return and untaxable with all the boomers retiring it would be a nice place to set some of their money - and make sure of two things low healthcare costs with quality healthcare (wasnt that the original purpose of medical insurance ).
and as for the guy who attacks you for attacking the rich thats the catch isnt it you cant say no to service if your life hangs by the balance what are you going to do if you have cancer deny care ? no you are going to pay what the hospital demands you pay to save your a** -again it is extortion
2007-10-02 14:55:49 · answer #4 · answered by rooster 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I like it! Pay as you go. It would eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. It would mean that you have to decide if the sniffles are worth 500.00 of your money instead of the taxpayers. It would get the insurance companies out of medicine where they have everyone as a high risk and the premiums to prove it. I bet medical cost would drop like a lead balloon too.
2007-10-02 14:59:54 · answer #5 · answered by libsticker 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
That is all fine and good until your mother gets cancer. Cancer treatment is EXPENSIVE. Based on your plan, we just let the poor and middle class die because they can't afford the treatment.
2007-10-02 14:44:45 · answer #6 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Good idea, but that's who stands to profit under Hillary's plan.
2007-10-02 14:42:38 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think take capitalism out of hospitals and pharmaceuticals. Maybe then, insurance would be affordable.
2007-10-02 15:01:44 · answer #8 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋