The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Government and Politics Government and Politics Forum including laws, elections, government structure, and political theory


Thanks Tree12Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 2nd, 2017, 11:12 PM   #1
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 200

Catastrophic medical insurance

Catastrophic medical insurance:

Government single payer is THE superior method for providing basic medical insurance.
Unfortunately, this concept has not yet entirely been adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not and cannot provide basic medical insurance superior to Medicare insurance].

Catastrophic medical expenditures paid on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to all; (i.e. to individual persons or others such as medical insurance plans) that pay those expenditures. They increase the costs and prices of all (commercial, or nonprofit or government) administered medical insurance.
Due in part to individual patients’ catastrophic medical costs, to their insurance plans are less affordable and fewer people are insured.
When the legally obligated or charitable entities do not pay providers of medical goods and services, substantial amounts of those bills are directly or indirectly paid by governments, (i.e. taxpayers) in the USA.

I’m among the proponent for federal universal individual patients’ catastrophic medical insurance.

It’s proposed when a patient’s annual medical expenditures reach the “catastrophic amount”, the federal government should assume the medical insurance of that patient for no less than then and the years that follow until the medical expenditures on behalf of the patient do not exceed 15% of the catastrophic amount within one of those following years.

Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not previously insured. Participating Affordable Care Act insurers are required to accept high-risk client’s and catastrophic expenses are more likely to occur among those clients.

The legally defined “catastrophic amount” should be annually adjusted. Medicare is an example of price schedules for authorized medical goods and services.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from tecoyah and numan

Last edited by Supposn; August 2nd, 2017 at 11:27 PM.
Supposn is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 12:10 AM   #2
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

What are your views on the european style medical systems - universal healthcare?
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 12:15 AM   #3
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

It seems to me the European models are good examples of what CAN be done and generally function well for the citizenry, certainly more efficiently than the system in my country. As with every existing system they could be improved but, seem to be well adapted to the population.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 02:07 AM   #4
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
It seems to me the European models are good examples of what CAN be done and generally function well for the citizenry, certainly more efficiently than the system in my country. As with every existing system they could be improved but, seem to be well adapted to the population.
I have no experience of the US system so forgive my ignorance but I agree the European system(s) function adequately in that universal quality care is easily available to all - obviously there a horror stories its only to be expected as ultimately no system is perfect and not all practitioners are perfect. I have private health care over and above the state system but thatís a choice I make based on lifestyle not an indictment of the National Health system as a whole.

I have always wondered why such a country as the US with the wealth of medical professionals at its disposal and indeed the quality of its doctors and nurses, that the population and politicians are still having the most basic of debates about how to provide even the most basic care to its citizenry? How is it possible that one of the wealthiest nations on earth is still struggling to provide for the care of its people?
Thanks from tecoyah
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 03:27 AM   #5
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
....snip.... How is it possible that one of the wealthiest nations on earth is still struggling to provide for the care of its people?
Unfortunately the United States has allowed Capitalism to run amuck and become entrenched in aspects of the political and healthcare systems to the point that it now controls decisions and become something of the controlling interest in a corporate machine. Lobbying and bribery (another word for it) poison the legislative process and eliminate incentive to make logical decisions.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 03:34 AM   #6
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
What are your views on the european style medical systems - universal healthcare?
Excerpted from this threadís first post: "Government single payer is THE superior method for providing basic medical insurance.
Unfortunately, this concept has not yet been entirely adopted in the USA.

[Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not, do not, and cannot provide basic medical insurance in a manner superior to that of Medicare insurance]".
/////////////////

Fitz, most of those that determine they cannot afford to purchase medical insurance are correct and the unrealistic income caps of Medicaid preclude their being medically insured. Some of them could have qualified for Medicaid or federally partially subsidized medical insurance but due to neglect or ignorance they arenít insured.

Almost all that incorrectly determine they cannot afford to purchase medical insurance will not be able to pay for any catastrophic medical expenditures that they may incur.

Catastrophic annual medical expenses on behalf of individual insured patients are of great cost to ANY (commercial, or non-profit, or government administered medical insurance plan. Prohibiting or otherwise effectively refusing applicants with undesirable medical conditions is also of great cost to medical insurers. Catastrophic annual medical expenses are more likely to be encountered among patients that had undesirable medical conditions when they applied for insurance.

Federal insurance of catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of all patients thatís not a cost to their insurers, would significantly increase the affordability and sustainability of ANY medical insurance plan.

ďOn behalf of all patientsĒ does not exclude USA legal residents that otherwise were not covered by any insurance. In the USA when legally obligated or charitable entities do not pay providers of medical goods and services, substantial amounts of those bills are directly or indirectly paid by governments, (i.e. taxpayers).

When considering its NET ADDITIONAL expense and the benefit/cost to the federal budget, catastrophic medical expenditures on behalf of all patients, (regardless of whatever policy medical insurance methods USA chooses to practice) now or within any likely future), is a preferable national policy.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from tecoyah and Fitz
Supposn is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 04:28 AM   #7
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Lobbying and bribery (another word for it) poison the legislative process and eliminate incentive to make logical decisions.
Again you'll have to excuse me...Ill catch up trust me, it takes time but I get there.
The implication being that, for the lack of a better phrase, the ideals of "the people" have been hi-jacked by a quasi-state organisation - a lobby group. How has that scenario been allowed to colour the debate? A single State for want of a better word is a country within a federation of states called the USA, the State, I assume has a responsibility to its populace over and above that of the federal government. Does the State not have the ability to enact or at least influence what happens within its boundaries... what am I trying to say...can the State or does the State have the ability to enact its own laws that would enable it to provide some system of universal "basic" medical care?

Assuming that the lobby groups funding and largese is aimed at a limitied number of self-interested Senators/Congressmen i.e. centred on washington, and assuming that States do have the power to enact their own healthcare provisions, then I would assume that the influence of the lobby group is massively diluted - if instead of just targetting a small number of federal pockets it suddenly has to fund a myriad of local pockets? Does that make sense?
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 04:46 AM   #8
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Medicare, Medicare advantage, and Medicare Supplemental insurances are an example of government provided basic insurance that individuals may choose to augment by purchasing additional insurance provided by nongovernment insurers. Commercial insurers did not, do not, and cannot provide basic medical insurance in a manner superior to that of Medicare insurance.
Does that mean that there is access for everyone to a system of basic healthcare?
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 04:54 AM   #9
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
PLUS Despite its POOR QUALITY,Canadian healthcare is EXPENSIVE to Canadians!!!
Perhaps it would be better to look at systems which are not Canadian and are better and less expensive. If as you say from your experience it is sub-standard then why bother looking at it as an example? Have you looked at the European models - France, Germany or UK for example? What is you view on them?
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 05:16 AM   #10
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Because the U.S. is most similar to Canada, and least similar to Europe.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Should the thought process not be one in aspiration. For example if all you want to do is take a sub-standard system and compare what you have to it then you don't aspire to improve it. I thought the ethos of the US was to be inspired and innovative, to be the best! If all you want to do is compare one against another then take Somalia for example and compare your system against it and you can be well satisfied. Or you could look at other systems that are perhaps better and ask why and how are they better and why and how can we have it.
You broke the yoke of British power by aspiring to have a better system of government and went to war to achieve it, so why not aspire to look after your populace with the same vigour?

Last edited by Fitz; August 4th, 2017 at 05:25 AM.
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 05:24 AM   #11
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Plus I enjoy around $2 a gallon for fuel, rather than the $5 a gallon, MASSIVELY tax fuel in Europe (to PAY for healthcare).
... not quite that much but not far off....and its for more than just healthcare!
But you're right we are quite highly taxed but then again we have a system that works quite well.
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 05:28 AM   #12
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
The Founding Fathers envisioned it that way, and 241 years later it STILL reigns true!!!
you sound Amish....
Fitz is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 05:33 AM   #13
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
you sound Amish....
He is nearly as intellectually advanced and almost as learned on current events.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 4th, 2017, 05:34 AM   #14
Analyst
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Medway Towns, Kent
Posts: 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
The final bottom line is: EVERYTHING EXCEPT NATIONAL DEFENSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS!!!
.. exactly the point I was trying to make above. Is that possible with healthcare? Can a State decide it wants universal healthcare for its citizens and enact its own legislation?
Fitz is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 07:26 AM   #15
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
Again you'll have to excuse me...Ill catch up trust me, it takes time but I get there.
The implication being that, for the lack of a better phrase, the ideals of "the people" have been hi-jacked by a quasi-state organisation - a lobby group. How has that scenario been allowed to colour the debate? A single State for want of a better word is a country within a federation of states called the USA, the State, I assume has a responsibility to its populace over and above that of the federal government. Does the State not have the ability to enact or at least influence what happens within its boundaries... what am I trying to say...can the State or does the State have the ability to enact its own laws that would enable it to provide some system of universal "basic" medical care?

Assuming that the lobby groups funding and largese is aimed at a limitied number of self-interested Senators/Congressmen i.e. centred on washington, and assuming that States do have the power to enact their own healthcare provisions, then I would assume that the influence of the lobby group is massively diluted - if instead of just targetting a small number of federal pockets it suddenly has to fund a myriad of local pockets? Does that make sense?
Fitz, states within the USA lack the feasible effective taxing and consequentially funding abilities equal to that our federal government can exercise within every state.

The states do have the significant legal powers to enact laws, regulations, and influence practices of health care within their jurisdictions; BUT they may not do anything that does or will be legally prevented.
Stateís activities can be legally prevented or mandated by the U.S. constitution, or federal statutes and regulations, or U.S. presidential executive orders, or U.S. congressional and executive orders, or by our federal supreme court.

Within each of our three federal governmentís main branches, there are individual leadership chairs of offices within committees and other divisions that in regard to the scopes of various issues, have greater than ordinary membersí powers and influences. By custom, a senator can halt some federal procedures within their state unless thereís a sufficiently great plurality of the senate or the senate committee to override that evocation of senatorial privilege. Members of the federal government constitute a society; societies are to some extent influenced by the attributes of their individual members.

The numbers of possible federal levers for lobbyist to target are not particularly more numerous than those within each of the states and their local governments. Lobbyists sometimes target the federal government in order to override states or local governments, and other times they find it advantageous to incrementally influence the nation by lobbying states individually.

Influencing USAís policies and practices is not as simple as your post would have us believe.

Respectfully, Supposn
Thanks from tecoyah
Supposn is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 07:50 AM   #16
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Ummm..... but they carry the burden of only ONE State rather than 50 plus D.C. plus Territories, so it is all relative! - hello?!
You might want to stay away from this debate in order to save what is left of your respect ratio, its complex and requires thought as well as knowledge.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 07:57 AM   #17
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
LOL!!! You are KING at jumping to conclusions!
Not only is your comment irrelevant to mine, it is inaccurate and actually solidified the validity of what I just typed. Every single time you "Challenge" my intellectual superiority you end up looking even more foolish....which I did not think possible.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 08:16 AM   #18
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
No worries. I can resolve your confusion:

I was referring to you jumping to the conclusion that Supposn is correct.
Allow me to provide education that you obviously lack, even though I already know that even such a simple concept will likely be beyond your ability to understand. When forming opinion people must form conclusion before doing so. In essence by calling me the "King of Conclusions" you state I have an opinion.....HELLO.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 08:54 AM   #19
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Getting back on topic: tecoyah, WHY are for for socialized medicine? Are you a Socialist now?
Universal healthcare is NOT socialism as made clear by multiple systems that have adapted the concept. By your limited understanding Medicare is socialism and you will be socialist in a few years.

Again, your simple mind does not deal well with complexity.
tecoyah is offline  
Old August 5th, 2017, 09:47 AM   #20
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Ummm..... when actually living in Canada, it was ALWAYS called socialized medicine.

You are refusing to call a spade a spade!
I once heard someone CALL elephants a water horse....does that mean that's what they are? Are you saying that we all get to make up whatever something is?

Seriously Auffie, you need to stop digging deeper an try to climb out.
tecoyah is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Tags
aca affordable care , catastrophic , insurance , medical , obamacare , republican , trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA Medical System Rick Government and Politics 8 January 19th, 2009 10:11 PM
FDI in Indian Insurance Sector!!! udit Economics 2 January 15th, 2009 02:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.