Skip to main content

View Diary: Update on 'Blue Shield, Scum Suckers' (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mspicata

    I'm sorry you feel that way.

    So if I understand what you're telling me, you'd rather pay 20% more for your Medical Insurance, and not have to worry about in/out of network?  I don't think most folks would agree, otherwise the Market would reflect that preference.

    The problem with this entire thread is the unrealistic expectations Americans have for Health Insurance.  Everybody wants it cheap or at no cost, with no constraints or Benefit cap.  Which is irrational moonshine.

    Until folks face this issue with mature, realistic expectations, I doubt any positive progress can be made.

    Signal/Noise has become too low for communication.  Signing off.

    Regards;

    "Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored."

    by railsplitter on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:39:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ofcourse, the point to be made (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, kyril

      is that if we had a "one payer" system, we could vote out our elected officials who did not provide proper stewardship of the program.  Right now, we can't fire the CEO of our insurance company or our local hospital.

      And yes, we will have to talk about containing costs...but with a decent universal, one payer system, we'll have some kind of platform where we can meet to have this discussion.

      •  In theory (0+ / 0-)

        but only in theory.  Do you seriously believe we would vote out of office anyone over this?

        I'll believe it when I see an elected official take the fall for the Walter Reed mess.

        "Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." --George W Bush, May 2, 2007

        by mspicata on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:49:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle, ladybug53, kyril

      The point is I don't want health insurance at all. I want health care, which can be paid for by the government at a fraction of the cost of insurance. Under universal single-payer care there is no in/out of network question at all, because EVERY doctor is in the single network that exists.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:36:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I live in Sarasota County, FL (0+ / 0-)

        the home of the 18% "undervote" in the last congressional race.

        I looked at the Democratic candidate's website the day before the election. It had the term "health insurance" on it.

      •  Even if it's paid for by the government. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        railsplitter

        it's still health insurance.  Someone has to calculate how much money to collect in taxes.  That would be the job of actuaries.  Someone would have to determine rates of payment to providers.  That would be analysts.  Someone would have to process claims.  That would be claims examiners.  Those are insurance functions.  As for it being a fraction of the cost of insurance:  You might want to take a good hard look at Medicare, how it's paid for, and how providers are being reimbursed.  Medicare is the closest analogue in our system to universal health care.  The government hires insurance experts for the actuarial and analytical work, and outsources claim payment to insurance companies.

        "Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." --George W Bush, May 2, 2007

        by mspicata on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:59:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site