Text 3791, 51 rader
Skriven 2006-07-09 11:35:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4264.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-774019.12230308072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <12mga2lb49rec8oc9k848ipkhl9un3eo7r@4ax.com>
In article <f6jua2tt8vg4j8vve3hg29hjaatu42888c@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:


> That's the idea behind medical savings accounts, and from what I've
> read, they're at least partially successful in reducing expenditures.
> Problem is, there's nothing to prevent the medical establishment from
> charging an arm for major expenditures and conditions. Forex, that new
> allergy drug that I'm not taking because it costs something like
> $10,000 year would eat up a medical savings account  mighty fast. Or
> triple bypass surgery. And then there's the matter of the poor, who
> can't be left uninsured. One could create mini-incentives for them,
> but at some point the plan becomes so complex as to be ridiculous.

     There certainly is. Especially if combined with the information on 
pricing that there is already a fairly large call for. Then people could 
shop around. There would be some that don't just like there are some who 
pay full MSRP for cars. 
    Medical savings account would have you hit the high deductible (half 
of the above at worst) then it would kick in. What happens after that is 
sorta dependent on the specifics of the policy. 

> 
> So while in principle it might be possible to re-establish part of the
> connection between the patient's wallet and medical costs, I'm not
> sure how feasible it is in practice. Then too, there's a danger that
> in doing so you would come up with something outlandishly complex,
    You obviously haven't tried to get private insurance or sign up (or 
help someone else) sign up for Mcare or Mcaid. 

> like the Medicare drug benefit or the Clinton health care plan. And
> where does profit fit in in the case of universal insurance? There's
> nothing to make the profit worthwhile, since they can't administer a
> plan as cheaply as single-payer -- just too much paperwork. I toyed
> with the idea of a voucher system for a while, with the government
> setting minimum standards, but it didn't seem to offer any advantages.
> 

     Profit fits in like it does in any system (including single payor). 
The feds already have a very successful voucher program in existence. It 
is their employee benefit plans that give you a certain amount of money 
and a selection of different benefit levels and types of plan.
              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)