NC Legislature + Health Care = ?
You all know the answer to that question, don't you? If you don't, I'll give you a hint: the Legislature is ruled with an iron fist by Democrats. Now you know the answer, don't you?
The Legislature has formed a health care panel. Why?The panel is charged with recommending ways that the state can provide health coverage to more people while keeping it affordable and of high quality.
They don't need a panel, they just need to know it's Democrats in North Carolina. The answer is already pre-ordained. Their answer is the same answer they always give, no matter the question: more government. Their answer will be for government to spend more money and increase regulations. The only issue at question is if they will attempt to price cap on health care, too. Of course, anyone who has studied history knows exactly how horrible that answer will be. The correct answer is to REDUCE government. Get rid of all the horrible, expensive government regulations and release the free market on medicine! Costs would plummet! Services would increase! People would be free! But that's not what North Carolina Democrats want. They want control and money -- and that's the opposite of freedom.
Comments
1
ahhh... the age old question of lowering ones Health insurance. There is no ONE thing that will lower health insurance. First. it costs insurance companies a lot to keep up with both various legal mandates and the high cost of paying for services. Services are expensive because Doctors/clinics/hospitals have to pay really high malpractice insurance premiums. Those premiums are high because the courts are dolling out insane rewards in law suits for things that were not "Mal practice" (Which should only be a lack of competancy/training when performing a procedure). Why are these rewards so high? Put a price on someones life, loss of lifestyle, pain and suffering.
If they want to reduce healthcare costs they are going to have to do something about that entire cycle.
If they want to reduce healthcare costs they are going to have to do something about that entire cycle.
Posted by: Contagion at November 08, 2005 09:06 AM (e8b4J)
2
I guarantee that removing the government regulations and requirements would absolutely reduce the cost quickly. Second, a cap on frivolous lawsuits would reduce even more costs.
Posted by: Ogre at November 08, 2005 09:53 AM (/k+l4)
3
I guarantee that removing federal and state requirements will have an impact, just not as large of a one that you are thinking. Now that most of the clients are used to a lot of them, they will be adding them to their contract. IE the time frames to pay claims, answer questions, etc. They also will keep certain benefits, such as infertility, well care and emergency benefits.
If you want to reduce the government, isn't adding caps to lawsuits just more government?
If you want to reduce the government, isn't adding caps to lawsuits just more government?
Posted by: Contagion at November 08, 2005 04:11 PM (Q5WxB)
4
The biggest reason that removing government regulation is because is will drastically reduce costs. For example, here in North Carolina, if I wany any health insurance, I am absolutely forced to buy ALL if it. I have to get coverage for mental health treatments, AIDS coverage, acupuncture, and a hundred other coverages I DON'T WANT.
Why? Because those coverages have so little actual demand that they would be prohibitively expensive if only the people who wanted them paid for them. So the majority of my coverage pays for all those things I don't want.
I want catostrophic coverage -- don't pay my doctor visits, don't pay for anything short of me being hospitalized. I am currently in a very low risk category for that happening, so my insurance costs would be VERY low if that's all I was paying for -- on the order of around $100 a month. Instead, the best deal I can find now puts me in at around $800 a month.
Needless to say, I'm uninsured.
Why? Because those coverages have so little actual demand that they would be prohibitively expensive if only the people who wanted them paid for them. So the majority of my coverage pays for all those things I don't want.
I want catostrophic coverage -- don't pay my doctor visits, don't pay for anything short of me being hospitalized. I am currently in a very low risk category for that happening, so my insurance costs would be VERY low if that's all I was paying for -- on the order of around $100 a month. Instead, the best deal I can find now puts me in at around $800 a month.
Needless to say, I'm uninsured.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 04:47 AM (7PCNv)
5
If you get insurance through your employer... you may not be able to eliminate those options even if the government removed the mandates. Group policies are generally all in the same they pick packages and then offer them to people. Depending on what the company wants depends on what benefits are available.
For individual direct pay policies, that is a different story. Then again a lot of states have wording in their laws that exclude direct pays from the mandates. You may want to look into if NC is one of those.
For individual direct pay policies, that is a different story. Then again a lot of states have wording in their laws that exclude direct pays from the mandates. You may want to look into if NC is one of those.
Posted by: Contagion at November 09, 2005 07:51 AM (Q5WxB)
6
The employer doesn't have a choice, either -- the state mandates that the group policies cover all the 135+ different individual coverages and items. If you want to sell insurance in this state, you HAVE to cover all the crap I don't want, no exceptions.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 08:00 AM (/k+l4)
7
I understand that, what I was trying to explain is that even with out those mandates, the groups might decide they STILL want them. If they do, then their employees are still going to have to pay for it in their premiums.
Posted by: Contagion at November 09, 2005 03:31 PM (Q5WxB)
8
And that's what freedom is all about -- letting people choose. They can choose whatever the heck they want, as long as they let me choose too.
I can certainly see instances where a company might have all the options in a group policy, but I think more companies would opt for the cheaper and majority plan, or even the old cafeteria plan.
I can certainly see instances where a company might have all the options in a group policy, but I think more companies would opt for the cheaper and majority plan, or even the old cafeteria plan.
Posted by: Ogre at November 09, 2005 04:11 PM (7PCNv)
9
Nope, the execs/management want all the coverage so the company plans end up covering everything.
Posted by: Contagion at November 10, 2005 07:26 AM (Q5WxB)
10
You think? I don't think they will. I think they'd be more interested in saving money. I know I would, and I've run a couple businesses.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:04 AM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0095 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0071 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.