CShine 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 You want to see the next political issue number one? THIS IS IT! Even for those braced for the usual hits on the wallet every year at this time, the news this autumn is particularly grim. Nationally, employees' health insurance premiums are set to jump an average of 22 percent this year over last, according to benefits consulting firm Hewitt Associates. Employees can expect to pay an average of $1,565 for premiums, or about $290 more than last year; families will pay more, individuals less. On top of that, employee costs for co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses are also expected to rise. Federal employees can also expect increases, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which manages health care benefits for the federal government. Federal employees, on average, will see premium increases of $120 for individuals, while those with family coverage will pay about $288 more per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Oct27.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,342 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Yep. Its all Bush's fault. Had we just taken that government healthcare package the clintaxes offered.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucorner 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 you can change all of this by not let the bleeding heart lawyers sue every doctor every time something goes wrong. malpractice and executive pay in the medical insurance industry is out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Those two things would help, but they wouldn't necessarily solve the problem either. There are many factors that go into this: malpractice lawsuits, executive pay, marketing budgets that have ballooned since allowing TV ads for prescription drugs, waste, fraud and abuse, not allowing people/small businesses nationwide to pool their buying power and purchase health insurance in bulk like large companies can do for their employees...the list goes on and on. I want everyone to have access to healthcare. And not just emergency care...normal wellness visits, prescription drug benefits, etc. I just don't think a system like Canada's or Britain's is the way to go either. But this is an important issue that needs to be fixed. The problem is, no one will give an inch because they fear any compromise will keep their ultimate goals from happening. I truly believe there are some liberals in Congress that balk, stall, and dig in their heels at various proposals to improve upon the system we have because they believe that leaving things in a mess in the short term will help build the consensus they want to have a totally government run healthcare system. If they go along with less radical improvements that keep the private sector the main player in all of this, it might work too good and prevent socialized medicine from becoming a reality. So they sacrifice the short term for a long term ideological goal. On the other hand, some conservatives are so deathly afraid of any government intervention or regulation on practically anything, they fail to see that leaving healthcare up to blind market forces is bad policy and may end up causing a groundswell of support for something way more radical. It's one thing to let the market decide things like what business ideas rise or fall...most of that stuff is for things people can do without if push comes to shove. But people need healthcare. And I'm not talking about lazy bums who don't work and expect a handout either. I'm talking about hard working people. The working poor. Small business owners who want to provide health benefits for their employees. These folks fall through the cracks. They make too much money to qualify for Medicaid or various state programs, but they don't make enough to afford health insurance, or they can only afford something that covers them for a catastrophic illness or condition. So when the kids get sick (or themselves) and need a prescription, they pay out the wazoo for it. They have high deductibles for doctor's visits and such too. Like I said, something has got to be done. But it's a lot of changes that have to be made not just one or two silver bullets like capping malpractice damages or executive salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucorner 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Those two things would help, but they wouldn't necessarily solve the problem either. There are many factors that go into this: malpractice lawsuits, executive pay, marketing budgets that have ballooned since allowing TV ads for prescription drugs, waste, fraud and abuse, not allowing people/small businesses nationwide to pool their buying power and purchase health insurance in bulk like large companies can do for their employees...the list goes on and on.I want everyone to have access to healthcare. And not just emergency care...normal wellness visits, prescription drug benefits, etc. I just don't think a system like Canada's or Britain's is the way to go either. But this is an important issue that needs to be fixed. The problem is, no one will give an inch because they fear any compromise will keep their ultimate goals from happening. I truly believe there are some liberals in Congress that balk, stall, and dig in their heels at various proposals to improve upon the system we have because they believe that leaving things in a mess in the short term will help build the consensus they want to have a totally government run healthcare system. If they go along with less radical improvements that keep the private sector the main player in all of this, it might work too good and prevent socialized medicine from becoming a reality. So they sacrifice the short term for a long term ideological goal. On the other hand, some conservatives are so deathly afraid of any government intervention or regulation on practically anything, they fail to see that leaving healthcare up to blind market forces is bad policy and may end up causing a groundswell of support for something way more radical. It's one thing to let the market decide things like what business ideas rise or fall...most of that stuff is for things people can do without if push comes to shove. But people need healthcare. And I'm not talking about lazy bums who don't work and expect a handout either. I'm talking about hard working people. The working poor. Small business owners who want to provide health benefits for their employees. These folks fall through the cracks. They make too much money to qualify for Medicaid or various state programs, but they don't make enough to afford health insurance, or they can only afford something that covers them for a catastrophic illness or condition. So when the kids get sick (or themselves) and need a prescription, they pay out the wazoo for it. They have high deductibles for doctor's visits and such too. Like I said, something has got to be done. But it's a lot of changes that have to be made not just one or two silver bullets like capping malpractice damages or executive salaries. I posted what I think are the main two ingredients driving this issue. I don't want the gov't involved, but they are going to have to straighten this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShine 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 It seems logical to think that limiting lawsuits would lead to lower premiums. Unfortunately, it turns out that that's just not true. A 1999 report entitled “Premium Deceit-The Failure of Tort Reform To Cut Insurance Prices,” by the Center For Justice and Democracy in Washington (www.centerjd.ord) studied the impact of “Tort Reform” on nationwide insurance costs between 1985 and 1999. It concluded that tort reform has not lowered insurance rates in the ensuing years; states with little or no tort reform experienced essentially the same changes in insurance rates as those states which had enacted severe restrictions on victim’s rights. Similarly, in a March 13, 2002, press release the American Insurance Association (AIA), the leading insurance industry trade group, advised lawmakers who enact tort reform “not to expect insurance rates to drop.” In the July 19, 1999, issue of Liability Week, the President of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) stated: “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.” ATRA’s general counsel, Victor Schwartz, told the journal of Business Insurance (July 19, 1999) that “many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates and I have never said that in 30 years.” http://www.sisettlaw.com/cases/tort.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Titan, when you say "a totally government run healthcare system" and "socialized medicine," what exactly do you mean by that? As far as lawsuits go, for me, being in the medical field, on the one hand, I would love to practice my craft without any chance of being sued, but on the other hand, I would never support any legislation that hindered or limited a person's ability to seek recourse through the courts for damages they incurred. Not only medical malpractice, but anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Here's a good little article. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.