The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Killing employer plans wouldn't help me; my employers don't insure me. My husband's employer insures him for employee cost of $40 a month. That's not too bad though I'm not sure what the employer pays.

I'm not insured through his work because last time I checked it was going to cost $400 a month to add me and I thought I could get it cheaper on my own. I haven't, but from what I hear it's about that expensive anyway.

I haven't been too impressed by insurance coverage so I'm not always sure it's worth it unless I have something really major come up. If you're going to charge me through the nose, please cover enough to make it worth my while. Otherwise I'm happy paying cash for my doctor and dentist. Insurance becomes worth it as we age, but I'm not there yet.

I hate our current insurance system. I'd be much happier without insurance at all, and have a scheme of health care instead. Government has to provide it in order to cover everybody; leaving people to cover themselves means poor people don't get coverage. Tax incentives? Don't help poor people who don't file or don't itemize.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...in the end I can't shake the feeling that it feels entirely wrong to me that a person's monetary situation dictates their access to health care. Money is a social tool, it is not a measure of the worth of someone's life.

Exactly!

[SacTown Chronic]

Damn the economy and damn you, Bill Clinton.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Money is a social tool, it is not a measure of the worth of someone's life.

If that were true, then we'd have compulsory military service and reality shows about homeless people.

[Morrigoon]

The health coverage thing is always a two-edged sword for me. On one hand, wouldn't it be great if I never had to worry about the cost of a procedure and could just go to the doctor whenever. On the other hand - HMOs suck bad enough, how much worse would it be if the government were in charge? When you have politicians deciding how much doctors make, how on earth can you expect us to get decent care.

I think the compromise would perhaps be that the government provide a certain minimal level of coverage (much like medicare) to everyone, and set up an arrangement where individual insurers compete for the business of improvements upon that coverage. There would need to be a financial incentive of some type for doctors who exclusively (or a minimum percentage that comprises the majority of their patient pool) serve the government-insured. But then doctors who wish to could accept people with increased coverage (in other words, the government plan would be like an HMO, and privately insurance would be the upgrade to a PPO).

The whole thing still scares me.

[SacTown Chronic]

I kind of like that rough outline of a plan you have there, Morrigoon. A solid crust of socialism with a tasty capitalist topping!

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

When you have politicians deciding how much doctors make, how on earth can you expect us to get decent care.

The same way you get it when insurance companies decide how much doctors make. Hopefully, you run into a doctor who is committed to providing it. Plus, if Sicko is any indication, the doctors in socialized systems are doing fine.

The politicians also decide how much public sector lawyers make on both the prosecution and defense side. The laws still get enforced. People get defended. I've had a number of clients who have bought into the myth that their public defender had to have been incompetent, so the family pooled money they couldn't afford to hire a private attorney that took their money and did nothing.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I like that middle-ground solution, Goonie.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He's getting sh!t for it, but I for one give McCain credit for accidentally finally admitting that we're in Iraq because of oil.

[Morrigoon]

link?