Get Congress in line

In order to have a sure-fire health care plan for all Americans:

1. Make all congresspersons use the same plan as the ordinary American citizen. No more freebies at Bethesda hospital.

2. Make our representatives quit taking money from the big drug companies. (And don’t listen to the drug companies when they tell you that they need higher prices to do research and development. Competition will keep them working to make new products.)

3. Keep the drug companies from advertising their products.

4. Keep drug companies from doling out drugs to doctors so that they can pass them on to their patients. This is just another way for the companies to advertise their drugs for free.

5. Make Medicare reuse or refurbish equipment they have given to patients, who no longer need those items after they are cured. This would save Medicare and Insurance companies untold amounts of money that is now being wasted.

6. Make hospitals quit double-billing Medicare and the insurance companies for services.

Enact item No. 1 and you can be sure our politicians will find a way to reduce all insurance and drug rates.

Bill Austin

Kansas City

Comments

[devin]

So how about a public option for those who are rejected by the private system? Some people, like my wife, can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions that will probably cost more to treat in her life time than we may ever be able to pay. A true free-market system would require people in this situation to simply die. This is why I'm slightly hesitant to adopt a system based entirely on free market principles. I've grown somewhat attached to my wife.

Some states (though not all) allow people who've been rejected by private insurers to sign up for state subsidized health insurance (and currently many that do have this option have waiting lists). It seems like simply doing this on the federal level would appease a lot of us who are looking for more government involvement in health care because the private market doesn't want us.

Of course, once you can sign up for the government system based on a simple rejection letter, there's still a pathway to the government taking over. For example, I'm an ultra-marathon runner with no known health problems. However, two years ago I had a fluid build-up on my elbow that I saw a doctor about and it turned out to be nothing. A few months ago I was turned down for insurance based on a precautionary visit to a doctor two years ago. It was easy enough to find another company willing to take a chance on me, but if there was a government option to turn to when rejected, I might have done it. (Actually, I almost certainly would have done it because I hate health insurance companies more than anything on earth...nearly every experience I've had with every insurance company I've been with has been awful and I'd choose the DMV over health insurance companies any time.) Of course, over time insurance companies will become more and more selective since the government is picking up all the "bad" risks until eventually all the insurance companies are competing for the business of the single person in this country who they deem to be the best health risk.

Yep, probably better just to let people like my wife die than allow the government to provide a health care option for people who aren't wanted by the private sector in the first place.

[chalveyob]

I could not agree more, these people should have to have insurance, or not use the healthcare system. The Federal government requires doctors and hospitals to treat these people and us to pay for it. The answer is not to force people into a terrible government run system just because some people are to irresponsible to have health insurance. The idea that a public run system will not degrade the private system is a joke, as soon as there is a public system, the first thing employers will do is drop healthcare coverage for the people they insure. This leads to rationing, degrading the entire system is not the solution for insuring those who don't have insurance.

[devin]

So let's assume that 1/3 of the uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. So why is it OK that the rest of us are giving these people a free ride? Do you think that when they have a heart attack they're not going to rush to the hospital for treatment? And of course when they can't pay the bill the rest of us are stuck footing the bill.

The notion that lots of people can afford insurance but choose not to is often tossed around as a reason the current system doesn't need any changes. It seems just the opposite should be the case. If there are millions who can afford to pay into the system, but choose not to since they can just refuse to pay (or go the bankruptcy option if necessary) when billed, then wouldn't it be in line with promoting "personal responsibility" to require these people to pay into the system?

We don't allow people to drive without car insurance because nobody knows if and when they'll be involved in an accident and it's unfair to allow one person's irresponsibility to cause a great financial burden to somebody else. The exact same logic applies to health insurance; just because somebody is young and healthy doesn't mean they can't get cancer, be in a serious accident, or have some other unexpected event cause massive medical bills that they can't possibly cover. Our country is at it's strongest when we balance freedom AND responsibility. Giving people the "freedom" to free-ride on our health care system without insurance from some source (private or public) is just too irresponsible.

[chalveyob]

Let's take advice from Rwanda on anything is your idea? I Guess if we could slaughter the people we disagree with like they do, we could keep costs down. The question is, whos healtcare will improve with a government mandated system? I guess those with no insurance either by choice, because they are illegal aliens, or because they cant afford it. For the other 140 million families their healthcare will be worse, cost more, and be rationed. Let's start by coming up with a real number for the uninsured, the 40 to 50 million is a flat out lie. The real number is more like 10 million, and I have no problem with a subsidy for them. Over 1/3 of the "uninsured" make over 70k per year and choose not to buy insurance, another 10-12 million are here illegally and are not entitled to health insurance, svereal million more are out of insurance less than a month in a 12 month period but are included, and 3-4 million more are children already qualified for free insurance, their parents have not gone to the trouble to enroll them in the program. I am all for portability, and not linking insurance to your job, this would eliminate millions from uninsured roles. If you really want to reduce costs the first thing to do is limit malpractice lawsuits, but this will never happen with a Dem adminstration and congress. The one point I agree with is congress and the President should have to be on the plan they pass, but that will nevr happen.

[Moral City USA]

No. 1 isn't going to happen. And even if it did, No. 2 would still not be a guarantee.

Congress will get in line when the people change thier voting habits. Until then, they dont have to change.

[pmcw]

"Enact item No. 1 and you can be sure our politicians will find a way to reduce all insurance and drug rates."

This is precisely the first step Rwanda took to reform its health care system. You would think that the U.S. could at least do the same.