You live in a strange world, it seems like its keeping a lot of people healthy that would otherwise be at the mercy of private insurers and unaffordable care in their old age.
You talk about letting private carriers tailor the policies they offer to "change behavior" and discipline people but you are calling Medicare quasi-fascist?
Only if you refuse to think about the type of things that could be done to fix and refuse to acknowledge it is possible. Socializing medicine is going to do nothing for this country. It will not reduce costs. It will not change the fact we are the most unhealthy industrialized nation and therefore going to demand services at a much higher rate. But we can do things that will create accountability while providing a safety net for those who do get struck with health issues outside of their control.
No…The government mandates these coverages. Trust me the private insurers want these mandates. They don’t want to sell catastrophic policies. Those policies are far less lucrative to an insurer who has very smart actuaries that are able to create profit out of each one of those unnecessary mandated coverages. That is the quasi fascism at work. Lobbying for these unnecessary mandates.
Thank God for us smokers. I'm the exception to the rule having made it to medicare age but what would happen if it wasn't for smokers who pay into medicare and social security then die before they are old enough to collect.
It's probably not a direct correlation given that it's been government run since the 60s (I think), but would a decent data point be to look at Flood Insurance rates? I vaguely remember my parents inventing new swear words on an annual basis because of the rate increases since Andrew making it all but impossible to get it (maybe it was roof or wind insurance; it's been a long time and my memory isn't what it was).
Is that it, or is it simply that that's the easiest thing to get/biggest bang for buck as a start and then go from there? I agree with everything else you outline in your post.
There isn’t much “bang for buck” for tort reform, other than for the doctors seeing a cost (theoretically) go substantially down - thereby increasing their margins/income. It wouldn’t increase the supply of doctors (already controlled by medical schools and doctors lobbying groups) or quality of care. It might even reduce quality of care if doctors aren’t as afraid of malpractice, though I’ve also seen claims it would reduce some unnecessary tests and I don’t disagree with that part.
I work with a couple of people from South Korea that, despite having health insurance in the US, schedule their medical care in South Korea for their family visits when possible. One even had a surgery done over there.
I'd argue it actually would increase the supply of doctors as it would impact the number of medical students applying. That has been steadily declining for decades now. I don't disagree that it could have an impact on care quality as well. I'm more on the bus of giving judges the power to penalize plaintiffs and lawyers for bringing "frivolous" suits as opposed to limiting damage awards as far as malpractice suits go. There's a big difference between a doc that did everything they could in a bad situation and lost a patient versus one amputating the wrong limb (as an example). I think the impact would be the same (number of suits decrease, etc) without imposing any kind of a mandate.
Seems like private insurers absolutely would want to sell you junk products that wont pay many claims, not comprehensive policies that will pay lots of claims. You dont seem to understand business that well.
It would have no effect on the number of doctors. Medical school classes do not have empty slots regardless of how many apply (and standards now are a lot higher than they have been ever).
Serial litigators of frivolous lawsuits ought to be punished severely for legal malfeasance, and I’m of that opinion whether it’s an “ambulance chaser” or a certain spray tanned President. I just don’t isolate that to the medical arena or to malpractice suits which pretty clearly only benefit a certain constituency.
You're in a better position than me to know (I assume based on your name). What's the limiting factor in the classes given that the number of students has been on the decline for quite some time? Is it a shortage of instructors? lab resources? something else entirely? I'm with you as far as that's concerned (though I also wouldn't limit that to anyone on either side of the political spectrum)
Actually not an MD (the reference was to the state, which I lived in when I joined), but my background is in economics, which is in any ways more related to the healthcare discussions we have in this country. Also, I am not sure where you are getting that medical school applications are down. They absolutely aren't. Also not true for the number of students to be declining, although that growth is much slower. https://www.aamc.org/media/57761/download?attachment In terms of why the growth in med school classes is slower than the applications, it largely is because medical schools are extremely expensive to establish and universities without medical schools generally struggle to get the funds to form new ones.
Considering the reality that 14/15 out of 100 adults smoke 25-64 and 9 out of 100 smoke 65 and older…I would wager that group of 9 out of 100 make up for a lot in the group that does not make it to Medicare age. Regardless. Medicare is broke. My kids generation will get to subsidize my generation like my generation is subsidizing my parents generation. But this is a side discussion…
No. And of course they do not want to pay claims. But when there is no coverage to charge for…there is no money to be made. A catastrophic policy is not a junk policy. Now a hmo might be depending on where you live…
Figured out the problem. Old data (that's on me and trying to post here when I'm multitasking a work meeting). There was a steady decline from the late 90s into the mid 2000s and it's been up or down within 2-3% ever since with rare exception (e.g., there was a spike in '21). It's been predominantly masked because the number of applications still significantly exceeds the number of acceptances.
It is a junk policy, you are basically paying them guaranteed premium every month for the low chance that you will have a coverable loss (that isnt already excluded) above a large dollar theshold (and those usually capped the max payout too). Its free money and low risk for the insurer. Its the ideal product for them. They are cheap for a reason!
