Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to CBO.

[billvon 2,400]

>But now that everyone is going to be insured, the health care providers can charge
>what they want.

They can do that now.

>So the next question is, will you be able to afford it if you choose to pay out of pocket?

Good question. Right now the answer is usually "no." Which is why people get health insurance.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>If there's a procedure I want that they wont cover, I'm free to pay for it out of pocket.

That's what I said.

But now that everyone is going to be insured, the health care providers can charge what they want.

Oh, just like they do now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>But now that everyone is going to be insured, the health care providers can charge
>what they want.

They can do that now.

well they can't - because you have the option to say no, pay out of pocket. My PT clinic is a good example - given the trouble I've had with Blue Cross, it seems easier just to pay direct. And not much of a cost divide. And there has been the growth of the boutique medical orgs that don't take insurance at all, allowing them to take a lower patient load and give better care. (I think with those you just get the disaster plan with the giant deductible.)

But when it becomes mandatory, there is this odd tug of war between free market competition and the current oligopoly where pricing increases are matched. I don't feel certain that free market wins here...

[billvon 2,400]

>well they can't - because you have the option to say no, pay out of pocket.

?? The two don't follow. They can charge whatever they want. And you can refuse to pay. If it's a heart transplant you need, the result of that might be your death. And indeed heart transplants are expensive - because surgeons can charge whatever they want.

>But when it becomes mandatory, there is this odd tug of war between free market
>competition and the current oligopoly where pricing increases are matched.

That "tug of war" will indeed change. But it's going on right now - Medicare effectively sets prices for many procedures, and this has actually LOWERED the prices on many medical services. (Supporters of Medicare call this economies of scale or standardization; opponents call it price fixing.) So it works both ways.

[lawrocket 3]

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

This. A thousand times, this.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

Wouldn't solve anything.

Car insurance doesn't cover gross negligence.

If health insurance would go the same route:

No coverage for those overweight or obese.
No coverage if you drink more than maybe one drink average per day.
No coverage if you do not exercise on a relatively frequent basis.
No coverage if you live or work in high risk areas.
Smoke? Sorry, no coverage

Forcing a high deductable on people. That doesn't solve anything either, since many people would not be able to cover the costs under the deductable limit.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

this would requir the removal of all state and federal mandated coverage

which is what some of us have said would lower costs (along with other things) for some time now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[charlie5 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

Wouldn't solve anything.

Car insurance doesn't cover gross negligence.

If health insurance would go the same route:

No coverage for those overweight or obese.
No coverage if you drink more than maybe one drink average per day.
No coverage if you do not exercise on a relatively frequent basis.
No coverage if you live or work in high risk areas.
Smoke? Sorry, no coverage

Forcing a high deductable on people. That doesn't solve anything either, since many people would not be able to cover the costs under the deductable limit.

So people would have to be responsible for their life choices?

Or else pay much higher deductibles, I don't see a problem there.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Absolutely. I know that. I get that. But net expense versus gross wasn't discussed. You're discussing the finer points that don't make a soundbite. Neither side is playing fair with this.

The $100 billion per year is the "keep it under a tirllion for 10 years.

Gross expense vs Net Expense is quite an important distinction. The Net Expense comes to about 1.2 T$ for the 2012-2022 era, which is on par from the 950B$ estimate for the 2010-2020 era.
The topic is about: Did ACA cost much more than the estimate given by the Democrats during its inception? The clear answer is: no. No, the cost did not double. No, it is not that much more expensive. Look at Page 11 of the CBO 2012 and compare it to its first study.

Quote

Note also - the health of americans is a disgrace. Why? Because we don't worry about taking care of ourselves because there's a pill to take and somebody else will pay for it.

I hope you’re a supporter of Michelle Obama’s “eat healthy” initiatives. I remember when she was boo’ed from a Nascar audience because they wanted to prevent “Government from controlling what they eat”.

Quote

Also - we know what happens when you choose to have a healthcare system that values high quality and accessibility. It's expensive. The government is choosing to make it cost less, which implicates either quality or accessibility or both.

This isin’t a simple case of “More cost = Better quality”. From the WHO study in 2000 to the 2010 healthcare study, America’s healthcare has consistently been graded among the worst in Western countries. Healthcare is indeed an expensive endeavour, a very complicated one. But to say the U.S healthcare has the highest quality because people pay more is not true (or at the very least heavily disputed in numerous studies on healthcare quality).
If I have to say a definite positive on the U.S healthcare (and which I argue in favour when I debate this among some colleagues), it promotes a lot of expensive R&D on crucial drugs such as Provenge and Benlysta. Even if the drug company (e.g: Sanofi) HQ is overseas, the profits in the U.S does in effect “subsidize” the drugs for other countries.
However, in terms of quality care for the average U.S citizens, it is simply not there.

Quote

Yes. That's Keynes. It does mean, however, that the money is moved from some to others by fiat. It is inefficient.

No. It is not just Keynes. It is economic 101 and it is something that has been repeated quite often by Milton Friedmann- the man who helped bring the supply-side of economics. Of course, over the years, the bastardization of supply-side economics is unrecognizable in terms of what Friedmann’s theory said.

Quote

Nothing is more efficient that point-of-sale purchase with an exchange. I want health care I go to my doctor, cut a check for $50 bucks and I get it. But what about government or even private insurance? I go to doctor, doctor asks for reimbursement and gets reimbursement. That takes back office staff for the doctor and staff from the payor. That is inefficient and adds costs to health care.

The old systems relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement. The new system relies on insurance companies for doctors to get reimbursement.

Quote

From a healthcare standpoint, that's "wasted" money. Only governments can point to beneficial policies from it. Those are also subjective, but either way, healthcare financing is inefficient.
[…]
My big point - Health care is an exception to economic models. It is not subject to the same rules where you can get more of it, better care and for less cost the more you give it. It doesn't work like, say, computers - where they are faster, smaller, more powerful and less expensive now than they were twenty years ago.

Inefficient compared to what? The old system relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement- where the doctors would use a good percentage of their time on paper works than helping the patients.
Doctors are unsure to prescribe clients with life-saving drugs such as Provenge because they are “unsure that insurance companies would reimburse them”.
I’m not even sure if you completely understand the point of the reform because you seem to think “Government has taken over Health Care” as if the U.S is now under a Universal Healthcare system (which is not).
The way health insurance as it was conceived didn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will such as the State of California, they give cheap policies to young+healthy and refuse anybody who actually need it. If, like in NY, the insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it doesn’t work neither. Premiums are expensive as heck and only the ones who really need it buys it. In ACA and RomneyCare, everyone purchases the insurance so that both healthy and sick are in the risk pool. It worked quite wonderfully in RomneyCare for six years.

Though I like the fact that you express your opinion, you still have a very black and white approach to economy where anything Government does is bad. Everything is in the details. Can Government spending be good or bad? The answer should always be: it depends. It depends on the fine details.

Quote

When fiscal policy controls healthcare, either quality or accessibility must suffer. You can have inexpensive healthcare that is high quality but rationed. You can have inexpensive healthcare that is available on demand but low quality. You can have high quality healthcare that is available on-demand, but it's expensive.
[…]
But the issue is - can you explain to me where health care has ever been inexpensive, high quality and accessible on demand? By focusing on the fiscal aspect, do you agree that either quality or accessibility (or both) must suffer?

This is another comment where you make it seem very black and white. Just because the cost is lower doesn’t necessarily mean it’s rationed (and vice-versa). We shouldn’t rely on generalities on something as important and complex as health care reform.
1$ higher cost =/= Better quality

Quote

The way health insurance as it was conceived didn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will such as the State of California, they give cheap policies to young+healthy and refuse anybody who actually need it. If, like in NY, the insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it doesn’t work neither. Premiums are expensive as heck and only the ones who really need it buys it. In ACA and RomneyCare, everyone purchases the insurance so that both healthy and sick are in the risk pool. It worked quite wonderfully in RomneyCare for six years.

Quote

on't know about Romneycare. I don't care about it when discussing this.

Romneycare is also something for which I have no constitutional objection. A state can require its citizens to do stuff the feds can't. Furthermore, states are a bit more responsive to their citizens.

If the states want to go socialized medicine, all the power to them! Let the states take it on - that's fine. Want coverage for pre-existing conditions? Go to a state where they'll cover you.

Here's the thing - will a black market exist for health care? One does for Canada - it's called the US.

How do you not care about RomneyCare? RomneyCare is proof that the system can work and is working. If you want to seriously discuss about Government inefficiencies in healthcare, then give a real-life example from RomneyCare. It gives a lot more weight than just spelling out generalities. As I’ve written, the extensive study on Romneycare has proven to be overwhelmingly positive. The paragraph about California/NY should give a better idea why ACA and RomneyCare were conceived in the first place.


Cheers! Hope you guys are enjoying the sun
Shc

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This isin’t a simple case of “More cost = Better quality”. From the WHO study in 2000 to the 2010 healthcare study, America’s healthcare has consistently been graded among the worst in Western countries. Healthcare is indeed an expensive endeavour, a very complicated one. But to say the U.S healthcare has the highest quality because people pay more is not true (or at the very least heavily disputed in numerous studies on healthcare quality).

If the WHO is your criteria, sure. But they have a different agenda than an individual might.

If you're an athlete that participates in activities with a good chance of orthopedic injury - skiing, skydiving, football - there's no better place to be, so long as you're covered. Since I fit both of these criteria, I'm quite happy to suffer under our 'last place system.'

If your lifestyle means you're likely to get shot...also no where better outside a war zone.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>well they can't - because you have the option to say no, pay out of pocket.

?? The two don't follow. They can charge whatever they want.

Not if they want to stay in the business of health care. If Blue Shield started charging all individuals $5000/month (or even $1000), they're really saying that they don't want the business. You see this with flood or earthquake insurance, which they may be forced to offer by law, but not forced to offer at a 'reasonable' price. So they just price it out of the atmosphere. This insurance isn't mandatory in many cases, so homeowners just go without.

The game changes when the people are compelled to purchase something. In a perfect market, the insurers compete on price. In our imperfect market where there are only a few major providers and they can talk...you can see the opposite occur. They wouldn't be egregious - price fixing is illegal - but would they actually try hard to cut costs? History under the employer pays model suggests no.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a marked improvement in things.

For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health care.

Wouldn't solve anything.

Car insurance doesn't cover gross negligence.

If health insurance would go the same route:

No coverage for those overweight or obese.
No coverage if you drink more than maybe one drink average per day.
No coverage if you do not exercise on a relatively frequent basis.
No coverage if you live or work in high risk areas.
Smoke? Sorry, no coverage

Forcing a high deductable on people. That doesn't solve anything either, since many people would not be able to cover the costs under the deductable limit.

False argument - here's a more valid one:

Higher coverage cost for those overweight or obese.
Higher coverage cost if you drink more than maybe one drink average per day.
Higher coverage cost if you do not exercise on a relatively frequent basis.
Higher coverage cost if you live or work in high risk areas.
Smoke? Sorry, higher coverage cost.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I hope you’re a supporter of Michelle Obama’s “eat healthy” initiatives. I remember when she was boo’ed from a Nascar audience because they wanted to prevent “Government from controlling what they eat”.

No. I’m not a supporter of government initiatives to direct people to some type of behavior. I’m in favor of being healthy – a simple change in my diet got me off of blood pressure medication. Kinda shows me it can be done. As a former fatty myself, I really don’t have much sympathy for those whose lifestyles cause them health problems.

I support eating healthy. I don’t want government to tell me. Instead, I’d prefer that individuals face the consequences – both health and financial – for their own personal lifestyles. If somebody is 5’8” and 385 pounds, I’d like to think that that person – who WILL have more health problems than me – would have to pay more for their care as opposed to 6’2” 185 pound ME. But I guess that’s not fair, is it? Let’s call it progressive! Let the thin carry the asses of the not-so-thin. Which is what actually happens.

Quote

This isin’t a simple case of “More cost = Better quality”. From the WHO study in 2000 to the 2010 healthcare study, America’s healthcare has consistently been graded among the worst in Western countries.

By what metric is “worst” measured? That’s a very important question because it is inherently subjective. I can state with absolute CERTAINTY that what is best for me is not best for you on most anything. “Metric” is important. The WHO study discussed which countries provide the best government health care. And in that study, the US came out tops in terms of patient satisfaction and patient rights. I myself find those to be extremely important.

Quote

Healthcare is indeed an expensive endeavour, a very complicated one. But to say the U.S healthcare has the highest quality because people pay more is not true (or at the very least heavily disputed in numerous studies on healthcare quality).

I didn’t say it has the highest quality. I merely stated that high quality equals either more expensive or rationed. You can have inexpensive health care that is high quality, but it will be rationed. Period. Or have high quality health care that is available on demand, which will be expensive.

The tension between the three is, as far as I can figure, irreconcilable.

Quote

If I have to say a definite positive on the U.S healthcare (and which I argue in favour when I debate this among some colleagues), it promotes a lot of expensive R&D on crucial drugs such as Provenge and Benlysta. Even if the drug company (e.g: Sanofi) HQ is overseas, the profits in the U.S does in effect “subsidize” the drugs for other countries.

I have proposed in the past that drug manufacturers should put forth all study results. All of them. Not just the ones that show a certain beneficial effect. But again, you point to the benefits of profit motive. If a citizen can make money (or save money) on being healthy that person will do it. However, if the person does not see the actual costs come out of the pocket then the profit-motive is diluted.

Quote

However, in terms of quality care for the average U.S citizens, it is simply not there.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean a distinct lack of face-to-face time with a doctor, you’re correct. Turns out that for doctors to make any money off of third party payors the doctor has to see 15 patients per hour. I’d like to see that change.

Quote

No. It is not just Keynes. It is economic 101 and it is something that has been repeated quite often by Milton Friedmann- the man who helped bring the supply-side of economics. Of course, over the years, the bastardization of supply-side economics is unrecognizable in terms of what Friedmann’s theory said.

No doubt. But government intrusion into the market to affect costs of goods is a Keynesian ideal. Friedman was a monetarist, which is also intrusion.

Quote

Nothing is more efficient that point-of-sale purchase with an exchange. I want health care I go to my doctor, cut a check for $50 bucks and I get it. But what about government or even private insurance? I go to doctor, doctor asks for reimbursement and gets reimbursement. That takes back office staff for the doctor and staff from the payor. That is inefficient and adds costs to health care.
________________________________________

The old systems relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement. The new system relies on insurance companies for doctors to get reimbursement.

The old system consisted of people paying to go see a doctor. Insurance was available for more catastrophe. Somewhere along the line people delegated the financial transaction to insurers. It’s like a person spending with credit cards versus spending cash. They see the amount of money going out with cash versus an atm transaction. Not seeing first-hand the money being spent leads to more spending. And insurance rates increase as a result.

Quote

The old system relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement- where the doctors would use a good percentage of their time on paper works than helping the patients.

What? Versus now when doctors have back office staff whose purpose is knowledge of codes to submit billing? So where’s the difference? The paperwork demands are pretty severe with medical practices now.

Quote

Doctors are unsure to prescribe clients with life-saving drugs such as Provenge because they are “unsure that insurance companies would reimburse them”.

My wife works in a California prison. If you think the government doesn’t take stuff off of formulary, then think again. Back when if a doctor prescribed you opium you went to the druggist and bought it. Nowadays, doctors wont prescribe what patients won’t get.

Quote

I’m not even sure if you completely understand the point of the reform because you seem to think “Government has taken over Health Care” as if the U.S is now under a Universal Healthcare system (which is not).

The whole reform package is healthcare FINANCING. It does nothing to directly affect the quality or availability of care. Just like burning coal is to supply energy and was never intended to raise the earth’s temperature.

Quote

The way health insurance as it was conceived didn’t work.

Sure it did. The way health insurance has morphed isn’t working.

Quote

If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will such as the State of California, they give cheap policies to young+healthy and refuse anybody who actually need it.

Of course! Much like the guy with 6 DUI convictions is going to have a harder time getting a discount. The person with a good driving record is going to pay less.

What is the purpose of insurance? I don’t think you know what the purpose of insurance is. The purpose of insurance is “peace of mind.” This is why insurance is there. But everybody knows it’s not fair to buy auto insurance after a wreck because of the moral hazard.

Here’s something else about the US – if you have insurance, you can switch to another insurance policy and they can’t deny you! If you had Blue Cross and had a heart attack five years ago and now want to switch to United Healthcare, you cannot be denied coverage so long as you had insurance within 59 days. The rules allow those who had their peace of mind not to lose it.

Quote

If, like in NY, the insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it doesn’t work neither. Premiums are expensive as heck and only the ones who really need it buys it.

This is going on nationwide right now. The young and healthy are saving money by not buying insurance. They are taking their risks. In the event they suffer some event, they can’t get it covered. They had their chance at peace of mind and lost it. Much like a skydiver (not a cheap hobby, is it?) who femurs in on the 20th jump (not the safest hobby, is it?) of his new crossbraced without insurance. Then wants help paying medical bills?

Fuck that. I’m not paying for your medical bills. I’m being asked to pay for his jumps. “Hey, folks, help a brother out. I can’t afford to jumps because I’m paying for my health insurance. Can you hold a fundraiser for $20 grand so I can get a new rig and a supply of jump tickets?” Wouldn’t happen.

Quote

In ACA and RomneyCare, everyone purchases the insurance so that both healthy and sick are in the risk pool.

Yep. The healthy subsidizing the unhealthy. And we wonder why obesity is skyrocketing? Because it makes financial sense to use more of the commons.

Quote

It worked quite wonderfully in RomneyCare for six years.

Again, I don’t know about it. But I have no problem with states commanding its citizens into a market. I have a problem with the feds doing it, since the Constitution only allows them to regulate interstate commerce, not force a person into it. My issue is not “how will it work.” It’s like going to war with Canada – sure, we could probably win it. But “really, what the hell?” would be a valid question.

Quote

Though I like the fact that you express your opinion, you still have a very black and white approach to economy where anything Government does is bad.

I’m fairly black and white. It allows consistency. For example, I think that assassinating US citizens on foreign soil is bad. I think that sending military forces into a foreign country without that country’s authorization to abduct/execute a terrorist is bad. Regardless of my personal joy that bin Laden is dead, I take great issue with how it was done. Yes, I have a problem with an act of war. I like that bin laden is dead.

I have a problem with keeping prisoners in a facility where they are denied due process and habeus corpus. Sure, they’re bad dudes. Or so we’re told. But indefinite detention? No right to a trial? Am I wrong for having a problem with that?

Quote

Everything is in the details.

Yeah. That’s kinda what I like to see – details. That’s sort of the reason why passing a massive bill without time to even skim it – much less digest it – is a HUGE problem to me.

Quote

Can Government spending be good or bad? The answer should always be: it depends.

Agreed 100%.

Quote

It depends on the fine details.

It depends on details. But it also depends on broad policy. Policy – make healthcare less expensive. Result – either quality or accessibility will go down.

If it is said that “It is the government’s policy that the high cost of health care is the biggest problem, and that in weighing the balance of cost versus quality and accessibility we have determined that lowering the cost is more important than maintaining exceptional quality and accessibility” then I wouldn’t be arguing over why the government did it.

But it clearly leads to a “reasonable minds can differ” analysis. Would you agree?

Quote

But the issue is - can you explain to me where health care has ever been inexpensive, high quality and accessible on demand? By focusing on the fiscal aspect, do you agree that either quality or accessibility (or both) must suffer?
________________________________________

This is another comment where you make it seem very black and white. Just because the cost is lower doesn’t necessarily mean it’s rationed (and vice-versa). We shouldn’t rely on generalities on something as important and complex as health care reform.
1$ higher cost =/= Better quality

Nope. You are talking about “price” not “cost.” But in going with that, I’ll ask you this: “Brain surgery is $10k. We are now slashing that payment to $3k as reimbursement to the surgeon.” What do you think it will do to accessibility? If you think, “There will be fewer surgeons willing to do it” then I think it’s a safe assumption. Or, “Those performing the brain surgeries for that amount will be lesser trained and experienced” I would think that it’s also a reasonable thing.

How can cost be lowered? How about by overhead? If a doctor can cut his staff by two, he can charge less and make the same money. Problem – he won’t get paid because that staff is needed for him to get paid by the insurer. The “cost” therefore goes up. I mentioned a cash payment as the lowest cost because there is no middleman. Straight up bargain. I’ve done it when I had an HSA. Cash up front. Less cost for procedure. A transaction that was efficient. I got care. She got cash.

Quote

How do you not care about RomneyCare? RomneyCare is proof that the system can work and is working.

Because it is black and white: country versus state. Let Massachusetts do what it wants. I don’t like it I can move to Connecticut.

Also note a different demographic makeup. Mass has 6.5 million people of which 5.2 million are white. Like it or not, “Sex, age and race” are three things that physicians first look to because they provide an initial screening of what to look for. Compare to California, 40% white, 38 percent Hispanic, 13% Asian, 6% Black and a population of 37 million. Planning public health is easier in Massachusetts because of a smaller population size (significantly higher population density, too) and a supermajority of one race.

MA’s plan could be a good starting point, but I don’t like comparing the characteristics of one place with another place almost six times larger and with twice the diversity. Making a national plan with it? That’s even more difficult.

Quote

If you want to seriously discuss about Government inefficiencies in healthcare, then give a real-life example from RomneyCare.

Correct. But again, we look at details. We even look at things like cultural differences. Socialism has a better chance of taking hold in Massachusetts than in, say, Texas.

Quote

As I’ve written, the extensive study on Romneycare has proven to be overwhelmingly positive. The paragraph about California/NY should give a better idea why ACA and RomneyCare were conceived in the first place.

I’ll tell you what. I’ll take a look at romneycare and studies of it. Of course, I will be doing so with a distrustful eye (it’s in my nature, and I admit it so it’s right out there). But as you can tell, even in my posts about the federal program’s costs I was trying to be fair with the cost estimate stuff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Perhaps if we went back to treating health insurance like car insurance we'd see a
>marked improvement in things.

Well, the most important part of the new healthcare law is, in my opinion, the thing that DOES make it more like car insurance - the requirement that everyone gets it. That way the costs are averaged over all insureds.

>For example, how about insurance for catastrophic injuries, etc. This is accomplished
>by a high deductible. Having auto insurance pay for gas, new tires, oil changes and
>wiper blades would see insurance costs skyrocket - much like we've seen with health
>care.

Well, all car insurance in any state must meet certain minimums, and the same should apply to health insurance (mist cover catastrophic injuries, obstetric care etc.) But beyond that I agree. Choose what coverage you want, and then expect to pay more if you want more or are a bad driver (or smoke.)

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

So people would have to be responsible for their life choices?

Or else pay much higher deductibles, I don't see a problem there.

People would still get the treatment, but would end up not paying their bills, which would drive up costs for those who are paying.

Which brings us back to the situation you are in now....

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No coverage for those overweight or obese.
No coverage if you drink more than maybe one drink average per day.
No coverage if you do not exercise on a relatively frequent basis.
No coverage if you live or work in high risk areas.
Smoke? Sorry, no coverage

True. Let's just call it what what government calls it - a sin tax. The government has no problem increasing taxes on tobacco, alcohol, etc. Why isn't the argument that the poor will be unfairly priced out of them not raised?

And we're not talking about "no coverage." We're talking about, "You smoke, you pay more." "You're Type 2 diabetic. You pay more."

What, to you, provides a justification that others should pay more for their choices so that they may pay less?

My wife is hotter than your wife.