Why is the emphasis on lowering health insurance costs instead of lowering the price of health care?

[saywhat?]

When I was growing up (70's and 80's) insurance was for "just in case" like car insurance only covers you for accidents. You don't need insurance to pay for an oil change, so why do is health care allowed to be so expensive that you need insurance just to get a check up?

[chevypirate00]

Good question....get back to me when you find out the answer....good luck finding it!!

To me the insurance companies OWN us....it's all like a mafia protection scheme!!

Life insurance...LMAO...you will die!!!...theres NO stopping it!!!

[stevetcolbert]

I think if more people could afford the insurance, then you would have less people going to the emergency room for non-emergency care (because they are uninsured)...then stiffing the hospital on the bill, which subsequently get's passed on to the insurance companies of the insured patients ...thus increasing the cost of healthcare overall which in turn further raises the insurance rates and lowers the participation.

It's the same premise on why companies tend to use collective bargaining for insurance for their employees. Increased participation lowers the cost. So one could assert that lowering the cost, would also increase participation and help to lower the amount of unpaid hospital bills.

The focus is... making insurance affordable, which increases the participation, and makes hospitals more financially stable.

I still think the best solution would be to take out the middle man... Insurance companies... who are taking all of the revenue out of the healthcare systems in the form of profit.

[speckofdust]

The insurance industry is loaded with scams and consists of hundreds of incompatible and barely compatible bureaucracies which don't communicate well with each other.

[Daisy]

Your right. This was back in 1949, back when I was just a fetus my father was approached by an health insurance salesman. My parents decided to hold on to the premium amount instead of getting the insurance. When I was born the total cost was exactly what the premiums would have been. It has been a story chuckled at by my family for ages.
Seriously, today my family's premiums($600 a month), leave us with nothing left for co-pays and prescriptions. It is like paying the electric co and not having enough left over to buy bulbs.

[ladyshondra]

actually most don't realize that McCain purposed a fairly good health care plan that would have been more workable without the government taking over health care.

McCain is against mandates, instead proposing universal coverage would emerge through the use of tax credits and a more competitive insurance marketplace. McCain wants to do away with the tax exemption on employer-provided insurance. Instead, he would give a $2,500 annual tax credit to individuals, and $5,000 to families, to purchase their own coverage.
Health care in America "should be available to all, and not limited by where you work or how much you make," McCain said in a speech delivered in Tampa at the University of South Florida's H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute. He wants to give control over the health-care system to patients. "When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions, less likely to choose the most expensive and often unnecessary options, and are more satisfied with their choices."

For the sickest Americans who would find it hard to buy affordable coverage in an open market, McCain wants the states to form risk pools, or what he calls Guaranteed Access Plans. He also said there would be "reasonable limits" on premiums, and federal assistance for those below a certain income level.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...854428.htm

McCain's plan was meant to encourage individuals to purchase their insurance and free companies from the heavy cost of providing coverage. His theory is that employees would take their tax credit and flock to the open market, where they could shop around for the plan that best meets their needs. Insurance companies would have to become more competitive to win their business.

he lost and now Obama must make good his promise to provide for people who do not want to pay.

the Octomon is one of the uninsured in america. we are footing the bill for the births and the care of her babies now.

i am sure there are many other stories with similar circumstances. i am sure that there are many who do need assistance and many do receive care from their states.

uninsusred in america.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18b...r_embedded

[flagger]

Do not confuse this issue.

The emphasis is not on reducing health insurance cost. It is on maximizing insurance company Profits.
It has nothing to do with providing service, taking care of the clients or any other of the noble causes of health care.

It is simple. More money for the company and less for the health care community and you the customer.

The insurance companies pay about 35% of the charges the uninsured do. It has nothing to do with providing care it is what they are willing to pay and the hospitals take it.

Then in order to make up for those shortfalls from insurance and medicare the uninsured pay exorbitant charges and end up subsidizing the insurance companies.

If they were concerned in lowering the real cost of health care they would pay for preventive care. 10 years of diabetic treatment costs about $250,000 but a nutritional program which can prevent it costs about $5000 over that same period.
That cuts out, pharmaceuticals, insurance, blood glucose machines and the specialists.

As always the corporations have us convinced that this should be free market. There is nothing free about this market and the theory does not fit the system.

The future of health care for the greatest number will be social medicine like England and Canada. You will not get that from the conservative media. They have too many profits at stake to allow that to happen.

We have very good health coverage. My son went to a family clinic for what could have been considered an urgent issue.
This was not covered. Yet, had he gone to an urgent care center or ER it would have been covered ( if after the denial I could prove it was "urgent"). They refuse a claim of $86.00 but would pay a claim which would have been $1200.00.
Remember that $1200 would only be paid at $400 by the insurance company.
They are not interested in saving money this way. They are more interested in taking the premium, denying the claim, making you fight it and paying only when they are proven responsible within the terms of your policy that they must.
About 20% give up and pay it themselves.
This is how private insurance maximise profit.

If you buy the story that they are interested in helping the policyholders you are naive.

The hospitals cannot maintain thier non profit staus if they turn away the indigent. The insurance companies pay at a reduced rate. it is up to the general public to make up the difference.

By now one would think that the public would get wise to the fact that the banking and insurance industries are NOT in this for our benefit. The McCain free marrket plan WILL NOT work. These groups are in it to take and keep our money.
This is not a free market in any sense of the word.

We posses the greatest capability for care in the world which is focused on the smallest number. It is because of corporate greed.